There are real limits to the amount of government activities and expenditures that the taxpayers can afford to pay for before their government goes bankrupt when the businesses leave that nation, city, state, etc., stop paying taxes, and then the government economic capability disappears ala Greece!
60% of the Greek GDP is wealth consuming government activities, and look at the Greek economic situation!
42% of the US GDP is wealth consuming government activities, so why should the US economy have a different outcome if the USA increases US government spending to the Greek government spending levels
I believe that the Greeks need to go to work and stop being supported by Greek Government handouts of borrowed money!
This might be why there are not very many taxable wealth creating businesses left in Greece today that could be creating national taxable wealth that would be available for the Greek government to confiscate to pay for Greek government services, instead of the Greek Government living off of borrowed money!
60% of the Greek GDP is wealth consuming government activities, and look at the Greek economic situation!
42% of the US GDP is wealth consuming government activities, so why should the US economy have a different outcome if the USA increases US government spending to the Greek government spending levels
I believe that the Greeks need to go to work and stop being supported by Greek Government handouts of borrowed money!
This might be why there are not very many taxable wealth creating businesses left in Greece today that could be creating national taxable wealth that would be available for the Greek government to confiscate to pay for Greek government services, instead of the Greek Government living off of borrowed money!
6
Building and repairing infrastructure will not only spur immediate growth it will also improve long term stability as well as instilling pride in the people. Smooth highways, strong, attractive bridges make people feel good. We could also use something like the old CCC. Get those young men and women who can't find jobs in the city do some manual labor in the fresh air. It will do everybody some good
32
You're playing "half-a-loaf" Obama to "finger-in-the-wind" Clinton. That's a recipe for getting nothing. The election is essentially over. Just don't get why you're taking it so easy on her.
7
When I read your article just one thought entered my mind. Is there a correlation between the drop in labor force participation of prime-age adults and the tremendous increase in the number of prime -age drug addicts and users who would probably not be looking for a job.
8
In essence Republicans have told us for 30 years now that there is a free lunch. We are going to cut your taxes and keep the government programs you all love. How do we get out of that to get a sane government? I don't know, but having Trump obliterate the Republican party as we know it seems to me a good start.
15
Sounds like Mr Krugman is preparing the Clintion excuse machine. And, it's a well honed machine. Her policies will put Economy into a tumble. Raising taxes in this weak recovery is , frankly, bizarre. As anyone knows, raising taxes on the "rich" falls not on the rich, who never pay taxes, but on the middle and upper middle classes. If you want to take money from the Country's main investment class, good luck.
4
I didn't hear candidate Clinton mention Social Security or even seniors in her economic policy speech.
6
Dr. Krugman, do you thInk it is possible that Europe and Japan have inadvertently shrunk the worldwide monetary base and lowered the potential world GDP by adopting a negative interest rate policy?
5
“Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” I know, it’s somewhat sacrilegious applied to economic policy, but still."
"Sacrilegious" because it's service to mammon, not a god?
Face it, in US politics mammon IS god--even controlling the Biblebelt some of whom might deny this hypocritically; but others--Calvinists--would say mammon is just divine election. Bush's, Romney's Trump's--Clinton's too.
"Sacrilegious" because it's service to mammon, not a god?
Face it, in US politics mammon IS god--even controlling the Biblebelt some of whom might deny this hypocritically; but others--Calvinists--would say mammon is just divine election. Bush's, Romney's Trump's--Clinton's too.
6
Paul, if you think the Tax Policy Center, an in-house arm of the heavily corporate funded Urban/Brookings Institute is not biased, I've got a nice bridge for sale.
https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2016/08/11/new-york-times-investigation-finds...
https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2016/08/11/new-york-times-investigation-finds...
4
You say nothing MR. Clinton did made any difference. What about his love affair with neoliberalism which did tremendous damage and still is. The vast prision system where 50% of the prison population is Blacks while only 10-12% of the population is black. Quite a his disparity there. Deep sixing Glass Seagall was a huge mistakes and very active mistakes in causing our financial crash. Oh dear. And the welfare 'reform' bill pulled whatever money from the pockets of poor mothers. No money no contribution to the economy. All things count. Hillary and Bill did these things together. These extremely low interest rates hurt the elderly enormously. No COL raise for 4 years. So less money to buy necessities.
It was arranged so Bill looked great as he left office because some policies take a bit of time to cause a crash. And Obama has been dismal about this. We no longer have a real Democratic party. Both parties are for the super rich and the IVY League rich. Very low interest rates for alng tme is a sign of neoliberalism. So is high unemployment and don't continue with the lie that unemployment is at 4.5% so some such number. You know very welll HIllary does not have to do what she says. How about TPP which she changed her mind on once so why can't she change it again and again and again.
What amazes me is the large amount of effort to knock d. Trump down. That's how badly the right wing Democrats are fighting for the status quo and refuse to listen to the people's message.
It was arranged so Bill looked great as he left office because some policies take a bit of time to cause a crash. And Obama has been dismal about this. We no longer have a real Democratic party. Both parties are for the super rich and the IVY League rich. Very low interest rates for alng tme is a sign of neoliberalism. So is high unemployment and don't continue with the lie that unemployment is at 4.5% so some such number. You know very welll HIllary does not have to do what she says. How about TPP which she changed her mind on once so why can't she change it again and again and again.
What amazes me is the large amount of effort to knock d. Trump down. That's how badly the right wing Democrats are fighting for the status quo and refuse to listen to the people's message.
11
BKC,
Rep. Marsha Blackburn is asking the FBI and other federal agencies to open a “public corruption” investigation into the activities of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Then there's Uranium One. Hillary Clinton who, as the Daily Tennesseean notes, "was one of several Obama administration officials who approved the sale of uranium to the Russian-operated company, whose chairman also has donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation." A number of other people involved in the deal also gave money to the Clintons.
How can we vote for those US citizens whose spouses sold US Military Secrets to our enemies in return for cash into their own pockets?
How can we elect those US citizens whose e-mail actions were “extremely careless,” “grossly negligent,” sloppy and reckless that harmed the USA when some of our US government employees (in Bengazi) and foreign citizen informers such as Shahram Amiri that probably died horrible deaths because of their slack security protocol with her personal computer that she had at her residence only for her own personal convenience.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn is asking the FBI and other federal agencies to open a “public corruption” investigation into the activities of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Then there's Uranium One. Hillary Clinton who, as the Daily Tennesseean notes, "was one of several Obama administration officials who approved the sale of uranium to the Russian-operated company, whose chairman also has donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation." A number of other people involved in the deal also gave money to the Clintons.
How can we vote for those US citizens whose spouses sold US Military Secrets to our enemies in return for cash into their own pockets?
How can we elect those US citizens whose e-mail actions were “extremely careless,” “grossly negligent,” sloppy and reckless that harmed the USA when some of our US government employees (in Bengazi) and foreign citizen informers such as Shahram Amiri that probably died horrible deaths because of their slack security protocol with her personal computer that she had at her residence only for her own personal convenience.
6
Again, Krugman is right. But telling the American public they will have to pay higher taxes for the benefits they want and need is, truly, the third rail of American politics. Let Mrs. Clinton do that after she is elected, OK?
11
We could try to reach a middle ground. There's no doubt that we need investment in our infrastructure but how to pay for it is another matter. It's fair to say that both parties only pay lip service to deficit reduction despite the
right's protestations. Economic research and the empiric evidence of Japan, etc. show that deficit spending after a point can be a drag on economic activity.
However, a large scale infrastructure program could serve to provide income to many of our poor, reduce inner city unemployment and maybe the social benefits would outweigh the economic headwind. It's time to search for common ground, we have enough partisans.
right's protestations. Economic research and the empiric evidence of Japan, etc. show that deficit spending after a point can be a drag on economic activity.
However, a large scale infrastructure program could serve to provide income to many of our poor, reduce inner city unemployment and maybe the social benefits would outweigh the economic headwind. It's time to search for common ground, we have enough partisans.
5
The need for infrastructure spending is extreme and could be done with very cheap borrowing. The to restore higher educational opportunities for all who can benefit from it at public institutions without burdening graduates with decades long repayment obligations is another clear need that government could address. The need to provide child care for employed parents which they can afford which offers good pre-school educations is another one that government should provide. So are retirement and health care programs that provide life long coverage regardless of changes in employment or careers. But for it all to work our economy must grow a lot greater than it now happens to do, and how to accomplish that is a real challenge. Globalization clearly does not both keep developed countries growing along with undeveloped ones and it tends to mean that until all are relatively equally prosperous, prosperity in developed countries will fall as businesses undertake a global race to the bottom in search of increasing profits and diminishing costs. Our experiences over four decades have pretty much defined the opportunities and constraints, and the risks for both across our planet. Governments are the way societies can address these challenges but the means to solve our problems have yet to be determined. How can the United States domestic real economy grow in a sustainable way, one that both generates lots of new wealth while addressing climate change, etc?
3
Mr Krugman, honesty in deciding our economic policy choices can become a norm if there were no Republican extremists and no knowing introduction of deviousness in our public policies. Until that happens, we will have to do with with Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer. Even without the wish for an ulterior motive, that Prayer on its own is good for the soul.
1
Here's an idea - cut the corporate tax rate, just like Obama and Trump advocate. The research on this is conclusive; corporate taxes are mostly born by employees, just like sales taxes are mostly passed along to the consumer.
But Dr. Krugman never brings this up, and it's missing from Clinton's policy proposals too. Why is this? Is it because it's easy to bash corporations? Wage growth has been stagnant, and this is the problem. If people don't have money to spend, economic growth lags. If their employers have to pay high taxes, they're less likely to give their employees raises.
So why keep pretending that government investment in "infrastructure" is going to fix things? This is the exact same policy that progressives in depleted urban zones always advocate; "let's build a soccer stadium! Revival will ensue! Let's raise taxes as high as we can, to spread the wealth around!" Do these policies work for America's urban cores? No, they don't. They may reap political capital for the handful of property developers and activists who ride the wave, but at the end of the day downtown gets a ballpark, casino, or new interchange - which only benefits the politicians, panhandlers, game day vendors, and squeegee men.
If the nation really wants economic growth, instead of listening to urban progressives who advocate policies that have proven to fail, why don't we emulate what the fastest growing and most prosperous communities in America are doing? They're cutting corporate taxes.
But Dr. Krugman never brings this up, and it's missing from Clinton's policy proposals too. Why is this? Is it because it's easy to bash corporations? Wage growth has been stagnant, and this is the problem. If people don't have money to spend, economic growth lags. If their employers have to pay high taxes, they're less likely to give their employees raises.
So why keep pretending that government investment in "infrastructure" is going to fix things? This is the exact same policy that progressives in depleted urban zones always advocate; "let's build a soccer stadium! Revival will ensue! Let's raise taxes as high as we can, to spread the wealth around!" Do these policies work for America's urban cores? No, they don't. They may reap political capital for the handful of property developers and activists who ride the wave, but at the end of the day downtown gets a ballpark, casino, or new interchange - which only benefits the politicians, panhandlers, game day vendors, and squeegee men.
If the nation really wants economic growth, instead of listening to urban progressives who advocate policies that have proven to fail, why don't we emulate what the fastest growing and most prosperous communities in America are doing? They're cutting corporate taxes.
4
"The research on this is conclusive; corporate taxes are mostly born by employees, just like sales taxes are mostly passed along to the consumer."
Are you sure you typed that right?
That's the strangest contention I've ever read.
Are you sure you typed that right?
That's the strangest contention I've ever read.
15
i've been thinking about what politicians promise. the pubs have promised to cut taxes since homo habilis. They promised to repeal Obamacare and they tried 50 times. They blocked immigration reform while promising to resolve the problem. Same with "saving" Social Security and Medicare and the VA by giving all the money to private companies.
The pubs have been promising things they don't nearly have the votes for. So what are they saying? Are they so anti-Democrat that they are now anti-democratic? Do they intend to impose their policies on the majority?
The "kooks" in the Republican Party get all the media attention, but it's the adults -- the owners -- that need to explain what they really want from government and how much they are willing to compromise to move ahead.
The pubs have been promising things they don't nearly have the votes for. So what are they saying? Are they so anti-Democrat that they are now anti-democratic? Do they intend to impose their policies on the majority?
The "kooks" in the Republican Party get all the media attention, but it's the adults -- the owners -- that need to explain what they really want from government and how much they are willing to compromise to move ahead.
9
To get back growth, you have to get away from the Gordon Gekko-era of economic growth and finance and back to the meat and potatoes of what makes an economy: the cycle of who's rich and who's poor should be fluid and ever-changing. No permanent aristocracy; middle class wages that actually grow. Let's, for starters, have higher tax rates on wealthier Americans to bring money out of their vaults and give others a chance to lift themselves up through hard work an determination. Lower college tuition to manageable levels (a good metric: college students should be able to pay a year's tuition with a summer job). Let's create an entity that has the negotiating power to lower the prices of innovations in medicine to really get at the root of the problem in healthcare. It doesn't have to be overtly government-run. It could operate like the TVA. The solutions are there, and they're not all that hard. That's how you get growth back.
10
The lack of productivity growth has a very clear cause, a lack of motivation among the employed.
When you've been working hard for years without a raise or a promotion, at some point you look in the mirror and say why work so hard? Why struggle just to enrich someone else?
Fear of losing one's job is a motivator, but performance based raises and promotions provide a more powerful boost to morale.
If corporate America continues to pay just enough, workers will continue to work just enough to hold onto their jobs.
When you've been working hard for years without a raise or a promotion, at some point you look in the mirror and say why work so hard? Why struggle just to enrich someone else?
Fear of losing one's job is a motivator, but performance based raises and promotions provide a more powerful boost to morale.
If corporate America continues to pay just enough, workers will continue to work just enough to hold onto their jobs.
11
No evidence
1
We are in an economy which cannot serve the entire country's needs because we as a country trusted private enterprises to act on behalf of the entire country instead of having our government set goals and objectives in the interests of all in consideration of what everyone needed over the long run. We adopted a set of policies which presumed that what serves private enterprises somehow needed to serve all so no effort to confirm that what was in everyone's interests were being served. The failure of wealth created to be shared in a way that advanced the well being of all was perceived with indifference with infrastructure growing both obsolete and in disrepair while the means of people to improve themselves has been becoming less affordable to most people, with wages and salaries not increasing over decades. There has been no effort on the part of our representatives in government, local nor national, to look after the welfare of the people, even as they enthusiastically advocate for the interests of special groups within the country. The ideas which are proposed by candidates for office mostly do not address the question of how to generate a lot more wealth that will improve the circumstances of all and be sustainable through the challenges of the loss of species, rapid population growth, and climate change. There is no reason to think that any private enterprise, no matter how large, can address such matters in any meaningful way, yet government does not address them.
5
Where's your evidence?
Evidence with respect to which subject?
This is all reasonable.
Except the apology ("Sorry") for the proposed "fairly large increases in high-income tax rates". Our high-income class have VERY high incomes, and it's about time they paid appropriately high taxes, which yields needed revenue and restores needed equality of opportunity and political influence.
This difference of attitude about increased taxes on the wealthy is the significant difference between the Krugman-HRC policies and those of Bernie Sanders', and why his movement is appropriately termed a "revolution".
Except the apology ("Sorry") for the proposed "fairly large increases in high-income tax rates". Our high-income class have VERY high incomes, and it's about time they paid appropriately high taxes, which yields needed revenue and restores needed equality of opportunity and political influence.
This difference of attitude about increased taxes on the wealthy is the significant difference between the Krugman-HRC policies and those of Bernie Sanders', and why his movement is appropriately termed a "revolution".
7
Matter of opinion, unlike PK-HRC policies which are fairly clear about matters of fact and where the best judgement doesn't know
2
1. Tax investment income at the same rate as work income.
2. Institute a financial transaction tax.
3. Raise the wage cap for Social Security tax.
Those are for the rich. So that the rest of us pay our fair share:
4. Repeal the Bush tax cuts for all income levels. We got along just fine without those stupid tax cuts, and if everyone including the 99% pay a little more we'll have enough for infrastructure, etc. without running huge deficits.
2. Institute a financial transaction tax.
3. Raise the wage cap for Social Security tax.
Those are for the rich. So that the rest of us pay our fair share:
4. Repeal the Bush tax cuts for all income levels. We got along just fine without those stupid tax cuts, and if everyone including the 99% pay a little more we'll have enough for infrastructure, etc. without running huge deficits.
16
The United States was the most prosperous, egalitarian, industrialized, and democratic country on Earth in 1972. A year later it was suffering from skyrocketing energy prices and it was about to suffer the loss of vast portions of it's industries, double digit inflation, crazy real estate speculation which would nearly drive millions of people from their homes, and a four decade descent into economic disparities and circumstances unseen since the 1920's. But if one was concerned, one would have seen what precipitated this crisis.
The United States refused to consider the possibility that private enterprises would let the entire country down by just being self protective, so it never paid any attention to the circumstances which were developing. The Japanese were able to build ship and erect steel structures anywhere in the world less expensively than any local construction firms in the world. The steel industry relied upon obsolete processes which could be replaced in a feasible way. These circumstances ought to have been anticipated and addressed in the 1960's.
The United States refused to consider the possibility that private enterprises would let the entire country down by just being self protective, so it never paid any attention to the circumstances which were developing. The Japanese were able to build ship and erect steel structures anywhere in the world less expensively than any local construction firms in the world. The steel industry relied upon obsolete processes which could be replaced in a feasible way. These circumstances ought to have been anticipated and addressed in the 1960's.
3
The only way to stimulate growth is through spending. Either the government does it with infrastructure and other projects, education, etc.; raise minimum wages so low-income workers spend (because they spend a lot compared to a few rich people); and/or give some incentives for companies to spend the hordes of cash they are sitting on instead of doing quick shareholder buybacks with only burst short-term stock prices and further enrich the already rich! Maybe it's a call-to-action, lowering/streamlining corporate taxes, I don't know. But if the government and Americans can't spend, then banks/lenders and business need to pick up the slack! You want productively, you fund it! The last resort would be for the FED to simply increase the money supply - yes, inflation could rise but it could be kept under control if thought-out. All the talk about trade policy will have negligible effect - the manufacturing jobs are not coming back so people need to make more in what they already are doing...
6
"On the other hand, what do we know about accelerating long-run growth? ...............The subsequent slide began under George W. Bush and continued under Mr. Obama. This history suggests no easy way to change the trend."
Sure there is. The cause of America's economic stagnation is concentration of wealth by the 1%. They are wealthy because they do not spend their money, thereby taking it out of circulation. It's time for a tax schedule that makes the 1% pay there fair share and puts money back in the pockets of the middle class, who spends their income and thereby continually invigorates the economy. The 1% may scream "class warfare", but they have been waging it since 01/20/1981.
Sure there is. The cause of America's economic stagnation is concentration of wealth by the 1%. They are wealthy because they do not spend their money, thereby taking it out of circulation. It's time for a tax schedule that makes the 1% pay there fair share and puts money back in the pockets of the middle class, who spends their income and thereby continually invigorates the economy. The 1% may scream "class warfare", but they have been waging it since 01/20/1981.
15
More evidence-free assertion. Evidence may well exist, though the place to look for it is evidently not in the Comments.
There are many possible causes for slowing of growth. Has anyone figured in the costs of treating employees like disposable garbage, in a "gig" economy with no security and no benefits? How hard, healthily, and cooperatively with employers and customers are such employees likely to work? And how much productivity is lost when simple, non-computerized functions are gummed up by forcing them onto computers, making it so that it takes multiple people many times as long to get the same task done? How much productivity is caused by under-educated non-readers whose spelling and English are inadequate, much less their critical thinking skills? Could someone please quantify these intangibles?
8
"We know quite a lot about how to raise the incomes of low-paid workers"
You totally lose credibility with that statement Krugman. Let me guess, you are referring to increasing the minimum wage? Wave that magic wand. Well it does not work. See the recent U. of Washington study re: Seattle minimum wage increase and the results for low income workers. From an article today:
The ordinance held back employment of low-wage earners, and hours worked lagged
Imagine that. Employers, who have to control costs, cut back the hours of workers who they are forced to pay more per hour. If you don't understand that then stop claiming that economics is your specialty.
You totally lose credibility with that statement Krugman. Let me guess, you are referring to increasing the minimum wage? Wave that magic wand. Well it does not work. See the recent U. of Washington study re: Seattle minimum wage increase and the results for low income workers. From an article today:
The ordinance held back employment of low-wage earners, and hours worked lagged
Imagine that. Employers, who have to control costs, cut back the hours of workers who they are forced to pay more per hour. If you don't understand that then stop claiming that economics is your specialty.
2
If by "center-left," Dr. Krugman, you mean 'Republican-lite,' then full marks to you. Mrs. Clinton's "vision" is a tepid 'be-grateful-for-what-you've-got' conservatism, tempered with a goodly dollop of 'don't rock the boat.' Hers is a boon for America's corporate interests, glossed over with a forced-upon-her patina of populism.
This is just another version of 'at least I'm not as bad as THAT guy," serving no serious purpose and advancing the political dialog nary a whit.
This is just another version of 'at least I'm not as bad as THAT guy," serving no serious purpose and advancing the political dialog nary a whit.
3
Paul,
You are being way too reasonable here. "The People" want pie-in-the-sky. Everyone is calling our problems....huge. Huge, Paul...Huge. Both those on the right and on the left think their proposals will "guarantee" Huge changes in the economy. Of course, they have no evidence, but when has that ever stopped them. They have magic beans and if only someone, anyone would plant them...the beanstalk would grow to the sky. So Paul, why do you have to keep pouring the cold water of reason on their dreams? Why, Paul, why?
You are being way too reasonable here. "The People" want pie-in-the-sky. Everyone is calling our problems....huge. Huge, Paul...Huge. Both those on the right and on the left think their proposals will "guarantee" Huge changes in the economy. Of course, they have no evidence, but when has that ever stopped them. They have magic beans and if only someone, anyone would plant them...the beanstalk would grow to the sky. So Paul, why do you have to keep pouring the cold water of reason on their dreams? Why, Paul, why?
6
GDP growth is dependent on forward increases (decreases) in GDP. As population increases, as expected, there needs to be unused capacity to increase goods and services to match people with skills and proximity to fill a void - trading labor in exchange for income to produce goods and services.
In a booming economy the skills and proximity of available workers is sufficiently abundant to lessen frictional unemployment - matching labor to capital to increase GDP goes to the GDP bottom-line faster than when the job market and growth result in slower uptake.
A increasingly smaller cross-section of American Boomers have experienced GDP increases when inflation-driven events and war economies over-stimulated the U.S. 'nominal' economy.
Evidence? The Great Depression before the WWII; 1950s post-WWII 'peace dividend' that dried-up in the late 1950s; "Spudnik Moon Race" and Vietnam Conflict 1960s-1975 that spawned important technology and increased GDP growth; Gold Standard ended (Nixon-1972) followed by Oil Crisis early 1973-4 that set stage for stagflation - growth in nominal GDP due mainly by inflationary prices.
Historic events drive the economy. Fine-tuning fiscal and monetary policies are challenging. Financial Crisis (2007-09) and Allan Greenspan's 'miracle economy' coincided with the Clinton boom economy that was illusory.
Inflation and debt-financing to pay for wars also resulted in 'Greenspan's Miracle' and generated most GDP growth over the past 70 years.
In a booming economy the skills and proximity of available workers is sufficiently abundant to lessen frictional unemployment - matching labor to capital to increase GDP goes to the GDP bottom-line faster than when the job market and growth result in slower uptake.
A increasingly smaller cross-section of American Boomers have experienced GDP increases when inflation-driven events and war economies over-stimulated the U.S. 'nominal' economy.
Evidence? The Great Depression before the WWII; 1950s post-WWII 'peace dividend' that dried-up in the late 1950s; "Spudnik Moon Race" and Vietnam Conflict 1960s-1975 that spawned important technology and increased GDP growth; Gold Standard ended (Nixon-1972) followed by Oil Crisis early 1973-4 that set stage for stagflation - growth in nominal GDP due mainly by inflationary prices.
Historic events drive the economy. Fine-tuning fiscal and monetary policies are challenging. Financial Crisis (2007-09) and Allan Greenspan's 'miracle economy' coincided with the Clinton boom economy that was illusory.
Inflation and debt-financing to pay for wars also resulted in 'Greenspan's Miracle' and generated most GDP growth over the past 70 years.
1
Cited evidence doesn't stand up these claims. Non-economists can check this out for free, with a little hard work of course, in the AEA's free online Journal of Economic Perspectives
"incremental but fairly large" a phrase that should enshrined with "one of the only" in the annals of Those Who Wish To Speak and Say Nothing, e.g. politicians and economists.
phrase is clear enough in context
Clinton Derangement Syndrome is afflicting those who actually believe that she is competent, ethical, honest and not just out for herself. It is apparently afflicting those job seekers who have been propagandizing for her in the NY Times, in the hope of getting a position of prominence in her administration.
4
Lets try and understand the productivity problem! What's not working? Have companies become lax in the 0% environment with easy high values, opportunities for buy-backs?
Are we all "worked to the bone"? Has innovation slowed down?
What's happening to startups? How about venture capital investers?
Are we all "worked to the bone"? Has innovation slowed down?
What's happening to startups? How about venture capital investers?
The conservative mantra of 'Tax Cuts' will never work because it hide's the reality of what the conservatives are actually saying.
"We will cut taxes, but it will be targeted and REALLY only benefit a select few of you!"
Really they should be shouting "Targeted Tax Cuts for some of you! The rest of you (80% of the population in middle & lower income families) will experience no material benefit! BUT these guys here at the top, well, they should spend more, and that will somehow benefit you and everyone else"
I'd love to see a thorough study on economic policies over the last 40 years. Assume a base income of $50,000/year, assess the 'tax break' that average individual received in each year, and compare it against the social programs ripped away to provide the tax break...then work that math out to a + or - number. I'd put money down that these promoted 'tax breaks' over the years have arguably cost everyone more money than less.
"We will cut taxes, but it will be targeted and REALLY only benefit a select few of you!"
Really they should be shouting "Targeted Tax Cuts for some of you! The rest of you (80% of the population in middle & lower income families) will experience no material benefit! BUT these guys here at the top, well, they should spend more, and that will somehow benefit you and everyone else"
I'd love to see a thorough study on economic policies over the last 40 years. Assume a base income of $50,000/year, assess the 'tax break' that average individual received in each year, and compare it against the social programs ripped away to provide the tax break...then work that math out to a + or - number. I'd put money down that these promoted 'tax breaks' over the years have arguably cost everyone more money than less.
4
Such studies exist
The main reason Social Security and Medicare are so successful from a fiscal point of view can be understood if we begin to imagine the man hours and money involved in creating 100 bureaucracies needed to deal with old people dying in the streets if there were no SS or Medicare. We could do it but it would be terribly inefficient.
It's a little like thinking of what a plane crash at O'Hare would look like if there were no entitlement pay out to the Airline corporations to clean up the mess. For that reason I'm not against entitlements for corporations just as I am not against insurance for old age pensions and medicine.
It's a little like thinking of what a plane crash at O'Hare would look like if there were no entitlement pay out to the Airline corporations to clean up the mess. For that reason I'm not against entitlements for corporations just as I am not against insurance for old age pensions and medicine.
1
To think the economy should be growing at huge rates is insane. The economy grows every year, and a one-percent growth today is larger, in real terms, than five percent forty years ago. One percent of a billion is as large as five percent of 200 million.
3
Unless you live in China..or India..
1
The missing part of Ms Clintons plan is real corporate tax reform as proposed by President Obama.
Reduce the nominal rate to 20 percent to be compeititive with all other Industrialised countries
However in doing this eliminate all corporate welfare and ensure ALL companies pay this rate.
This will attract new investment needed for a renewable energy program, it will help small American businesses who are paying the full rate while companies like GE pay very little .
At the same time look at our tax on dividends many of our competitors tax dividends at a higher rate than we do this could raise extra revenue to pay for a renewable energy investment program
The reduction in nominal tax rate is revenue neutral as the actual Corporate rate is around 18 percent
Reduce the nominal rate to 20 percent to be compeititive with all other Industrialised countries
However in doing this eliminate all corporate welfare and ensure ALL companies pay this rate.
This will attract new investment needed for a renewable energy program, it will help small American businesses who are paying the full rate while companies like GE pay very little .
At the same time look at our tax on dividends many of our competitors tax dividends at a higher rate than we do this could raise extra revenue to pay for a renewable energy investment program
The reduction in nominal tax rate is revenue neutral as the actual Corporate rate is around 18 percent
2
I think the problem for the economy is there is too much money idly sitting around in the private sector. And what people want this money to do is to make more money. I think this constant hunt for good returns created the housing bust and now is moving toward a used car bust.
The hyper rich already have everything from palatial estates to cruise ship sized yachts and jumbo private jets. What is lacking is a long term plan for infrastructure spending along with massive investment in education which would include huge reductions in the out-of-pocket expense of college.
I believe we've reached a point where low taxes have become counter productive. Only the government can extract enough money out of our economy and then spend it so as to make a difference. When government spends money jobs are created. When money chases money, bubbles are created which as we're seeing, take years from which to recover.
The hyper rich already have everything from palatial estates to cruise ship sized yachts and jumbo private jets. What is lacking is a long term plan for infrastructure spending along with massive investment in education which would include huge reductions in the out-of-pocket expense of college.
I believe we've reached a point where low taxes have become counter productive. Only the government can extract enough money out of our economy and then spend it so as to make a difference. When government spends money jobs are created. When money chases money, bubbles are created which as we're seeing, take years from which to recover.
6
Dr. Krugman has left out one important cause of unemployment and slow growth: technology. Consider the number of robots in the auto industry. They have replaced much of the work force. Most of today's technology companies hire relatively few employees. Robotics is predicted to replace many of today's workers in the near future. Unless we begin to consider a universal basic income for all, we're going to have unemployment and slow growth in the foreseeable future.
6
Paul,
I think I read somewhere that people are simply saturated with consuming. Only so many of us can amass materials possessions, yet also many are burning out on buying stuff, much we don't really need.
Might that possibly attribute that to the stagnant growth?
I think I read somewhere that people are simply saturated with consuming. Only so many of us can amass materials possessions, yet also many are burning out on buying stuff, much we don't really need.
Might that possibly attribute that to the stagnant growth?
2
In a consumer economy, if you put more buying power in the hands of more people, you should get stronger growth.
The important point that Krugman makes here is that, on policy, Hillary has been consistently the most honest of all this year's contenders for the presidency. There are no outlandish assumptions in her proposals, and her numbers add up. Maybe what Hillary offer seems modest and lacking in ambition to some, but that's because she takes into account political realities. What she proposes is all well within the realm of reason.
Like Krugman says, we need to focus on the things we know the government can actually do, and not the vague, preposterous pie-in-the-sky promises that so many others bring to the table.
The important point that Krugman makes here is that, on policy, Hillary has been consistently the most honest of all this year's contenders for the presidency. There are no outlandish assumptions in her proposals, and her numbers add up. Maybe what Hillary offer seems modest and lacking in ambition to some, but that's because she takes into account political realities. What she proposes is all well within the realm of reason.
Like Krugman says, we need to focus on the things we know the government can actually do, and not the vague, preposterous pie-in-the-sky promises that so many others bring to the table.
5
Ok, although I don´t like her. She is another run of the mill with a keen eye for easy money and loose rules when it comes to making it. What she says is not going to be what she does. The crony capitalism and endless warfare and spying won´t abate with her. She is so close to Obama world in that respect there is no daylight between them. Trump is a buffoonish disaster and will lose 40 states but beating him is not going to change anything. The country has drifted since Reagan into a twilight of the professional political class when what it needs is not just an overhaul of the system but another one. There are better ones out there. Unfortunately nobody in power will change a thing. So, get somebody who will.
3
"Meanwhile, I don’t think enough people appreciate the courage involved in focusing on things we actually know how to do, as opposed to happy talk about wondrous growth." It works so much better for any political agenda to try instead to divide and conquer. History tells us that; but this is herstory.
5
"Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.” Wouldn’t it be great if that kind of policy honesty became the norm?
Well, if we're going all-out with honesty, please change "some" to "all" and "higher" to "a lot higher."
Well, if we're going all-out with honesty, please change "some" to "all" and "higher" to "a lot higher."
2
Seinfelds said it best, Frank's Serenity NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow_9MglZrhs
1
"commentators try to dismiss Hillary Clinton’s dominance in the polls — yes, Clinton Derangement Syndrome is alive and well — by insisting that she would be losing badly if only the G.O.P. had nominated someone else." i don't watch the morons on FOX news but i haven't heard any other pundit say she would be losing badly if someone other than Trump was running against her. that would be an idiotic statement. How she would fare against another candidate would obviously depend on who that candidate was.
2
"Is the modesty of the Clinton economic agenda too much of a good thing? Should accelerating U.S. economic growth be a bigger priority?"
Let's ask someone who wasn't born into privilege; who doesn't live in an upper-middle-class neighborhood; who didn't attend an ivy league school; who doesn't work as an meritocrat; who is living pay check to pay check. Those folks might suggest these are not the right questions.
Let's ask someone who wasn't born into privilege; who doesn't live in an upper-middle-class neighborhood; who didn't attend an ivy league school; who doesn't work as an meritocrat; who is living pay check to pay check. Those folks might suggest these are not the right questions.
6
I read Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" last year, the most interesting dull book I ever read. It presented vast amounts of data over hundreds of years, worldwide, that led him to propose that the post-War world of good growth was simply an historical anomaly, and the 1 to 2 percent growth rate is the real norm for our economy. Sort of like "economic climate change" that we better pay attention to.
I am curious that Krugman has never written about Piketty [that I know of]. How about a column about that, some time?
I am curious that Krugman has never written about Piketty [that I know of]. How about a column about that, some time?
Yes, he has. Google Krugman Pikkety
4
Doesn't Kansas and Brownback's Folly in the last 3 years clearly disprove the Republican theory of cutting taxes spurs growth? Rational Republicans in Kansas - sounds like a rare species - are objecting to and rejecting the predictably catastrophic economic consequences of the idiotic belief that a state or country can educate, medically treat, environmentally protect, transport and employ (and for the US, defend) its population without taxing that population. Even the Romans weren't that stupid.
8
The American dream is principled on the concept of limitless potential. The idea that no matter the challenge anyone has the opportunity to overcome. The national collective will succeed against the tyranny of circumstance and drive the greater good for all persons regardless of the obstacle. A notion very much in line with free market capitalism. Perhaps the notion simply isn't true.
Consider a pessimistic scenario. Imagine the United States, after the turmoil of genesis, has exhausted the geographical and technical means to sustain limitless growth. Consumption cannot increase but merely shift between preferences. We've hit the threshold of diminishing marginal utility and returns. By the laws of economics this would suggest supply can no longer increase either. We are therefore approaching an equilibrium.
However, this equilibrium is anything but equal in terms of resource distribution. There are people who desire to consume more than their means and others inventing ways to consume in excess. Neither can discover an outlet to rectify the irrationality of their circumstance. In theory, policy would correct course on behalf of the population. What if we've long passed the threshold for corrective action though?
Now consider the phenomenon is not localized to the United States but global and permanent. We've hit the GDP plateau. There's little or no more growth to grow the pie. With Climate change, the pie will more likely decrease. What say you now Mr./Mrs. President?
Consider a pessimistic scenario. Imagine the United States, after the turmoil of genesis, has exhausted the geographical and technical means to sustain limitless growth. Consumption cannot increase but merely shift between preferences. We've hit the threshold of diminishing marginal utility and returns. By the laws of economics this would suggest supply can no longer increase either. We are therefore approaching an equilibrium.
However, this equilibrium is anything but equal in terms of resource distribution. There are people who desire to consume more than their means and others inventing ways to consume in excess. Neither can discover an outlet to rectify the irrationality of their circumstance. In theory, policy would correct course on behalf of the population. What if we've long passed the threshold for corrective action though?
Now consider the phenomenon is not localized to the United States but global and permanent. We've hit the GDP plateau. There's little or no more growth to grow the pie. With Climate change, the pie will more likely decrease. What say you now Mr./Mrs. President?
3
Let's raise taxes on vast wealth to the point that increasingly wealthy dynasties are held in check. That means a huge increase in the estate tax (but not lowering the size of exemptions, currently near $10 million for a couple) and a huge increase in the top rate of federal income tax (for incomes at very high levels, meaning that new top brackets are created), as well as changing the laws to prevent the shabby but legal scams used to hide large sums of money from taxation. Remember, the people who pay for these breaks for the super-rich are us, either in our taxes or by losing benefits like (for example) good roads, good health care, and universal internet.
7
It is absurdly silly (like a tiny child trying to fly a spaceship of candy into the sun) to say that the policies proposed forth by Hillary are specific and noteworthy and well-foundationed. She is like the person in the high school saying "everything will be great, no grades, teachers will give free desserts, only gym and recess"). She says she will take the money from the rich and from Wall Street to give to the poor--do you really believe this to be? No one thinks this is real. No one, not even she. It's just gob-gob talk.
2
But, apparently, Trump's proposals to chop everybody's taxes a little and rich people's taxes 19%, expand Social Security, build a bigger military, and spend "huge," on infrastructure, make perfect sense to you.
Okay, sure.
Okay, sure.
6
I'm sorry TH. They don't care, they know this. This is an ideological campaign of cynicism and disrespect to the voters. They are selling their pig in a poke and putting lipstick on it. Lies and character assassination, destruction of political dialog, the abuse of the political system, nothing has any meaning other than the class warfare and destruction of American society they want. They hate democracy, hence endless peddling of idiotic conspiracy theories not one of which they believe. Set the fools against each other and human nature will do the rest.
2
Hillary's a saint, Trump is the Devil and you're an simplistic idiot.
3
perennial Hillary-rooter Krugman ought take care to avoid Wasserman-Schultz Syndrome -- sent home in disgrace dragging excessive Hillary tail behind to a now uncertain sinecure. Republicans could be right when make unprovable claim Hillary would be losing if only GOP nominated anyone other than Trump. Similarly, Democrats mayclaim Trump would be losing by even more had Democrats nominated ANYONE (O'Malley, Biden, Sanders) other than Hillary. Brother Juniper waits anxiously to see if heavily baggage-burdened Hillary makes it across The Bridge of San Luis Rey (over the Trump abyss).
1
Mr. Krugman sounds as if he's trying to talk himself into something. Clearly, Hillary lacks boldness in domestic policy matters. A little change this way, a little that way and she'll be satisfied. Sounds reasonable, but she'll get far less than what she proposes because that's the way of politics. If she tries tweaking the way things work just a little, she'll be governing as if it were 1955, a time when most people were pretty satisfied with the way things were going. The shifts the country needs now are more radical than she contemplates. A small group owns too much and throws its weight around too much, for a republic like ours to tolerate. The country's mood is somewhere between shivering and seething. We have two candidates: one a certifiable lunatic who should never be elected to anything (would you let this guy park your car?), the other an out-of-date liberal who is aiming too low. If you've hated our Congressional sideshow over the last six years, and you're concerned about the survival-threatening tensions in the country, buckle up.
2
Mr. Krugman lets his political view interfere with his economic views. Ms. Clinton will be the next President; but don't look for any big surprises. It will be more of the same 'Obamanomics', and Mr. Krugman, our economy is in such great shape today. I'm sure Hillary will continue to 'improve' growth in our economy.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
The ideal Republican candidate: "a sensible, moderate conservative with good ideas." They actually had one not too long ago. It was Jon Huntsman. Unfortunately, he was not crazy enough for the Republican primary voting base.
4
So Krugman says ... I’d argue, in particular, for substantially more infrastructure spending than Mrs. Clinton is currently proposing, and more borrowing to pay for it. This might significantly boost growth. But it would be unwise to count on it....It's insane to equate "growth" with smart infrastructure spending; infrastructure spending is something you do for its own sake. It's not a gimmick. If 50% of our workforce is NOT somehow involved in building, designing, employed by, maintaining, etc. our infrastructure systems (water, sewer, education, security, nature, etc.) we are all sick little puppies who deserve the terrible mess Krugman and his colleagues advise us can't be known.
2
"We do, in fact know how to provide essential health care to everyone; most advanced countries do it." I am happy to see that you have come around on this one, PK, since I do tend to agree with you on most issues. I do seem to recall however, a certain dismissive attitude toward Mr. Sanders' claim that we could accomplish this. Maybe you owe Bernie an apology?
3
Krugman's supported single-payer for years--though by the way, European countries don't exactly have single-payer systems.
He simply says that it's very expensive, far more xpensive than Sanders thinks, that it's hard to see how we'd work the politics to get it right now, and that we'd likely be better off expanding Obamacare.
He says these things because they are true.
He simply says that it's very expensive, far more xpensive than Sanders thinks, that it's hard to see how we'd work the politics to get it right now, and that we'd likely be better off expanding Obamacare.
He says these things because they are true.
6
Oh by the way could you lay off the tee shirt optics from the DNC, tee shirts aren't going to bring back manufacturing to the rust belt even through they look really good. You know show some courage and wisdom.
2
I hope Kaine is really ready to be POTUS because if Hillary wins the election, within 2 years she will need to resign due to the pressures of the upcoming economic downturn that will give her a stroke.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
1
The various Republican proposals are calamitously ruinous and immoral. That's the easy part of the analysis.
Clinton's proposals are excessively cautious and insufficient to the purpose. Professor Krugman, usually so brilliant, shouldn't be so diffident about challenging Clinton's excessive caution and insufficient use of her bully pulpit to make the case to the country for her plans.
We urgently require immediate, massive spending on our dilapidated infrastructure. We can borrow at historically low rates to pay for these urgently needed projects. Our society requires a modern platform, not a creeking, collapsing one. Building it will entail thousands of major projects across the country that will be performed by tens of thousands or more.
These new infrastructure employees -- architects, engineers, construction workers and others -- will have good-paying jobs creating our renovated platform. They will spend their pay on goods and services, which will be provided by businesses that will invest and hire in order to fill their orders. The economy will enter a self-reinforcing period of growth and prosperity.
To the extent it is necessary to pay for infrastructure with offsetting cuts or new taxes, I suggest three obvious targets: Substantial reductions of (1) our monstrous military budget, (2) our militarization of the southern border, and (3) our so-called "war against drugs".
It is not enough to be better than the Republicans. That is too low a bar.
Clinton's proposals are excessively cautious and insufficient to the purpose. Professor Krugman, usually so brilliant, shouldn't be so diffident about challenging Clinton's excessive caution and insufficient use of her bully pulpit to make the case to the country for her plans.
We urgently require immediate, massive spending on our dilapidated infrastructure. We can borrow at historically low rates to pay for these urgently needed projects. Our society requires a modern platform, not a creeking, collapsing one. Building it will entail thousands of major projects across the country that will be performed by tens of thousands or more.
These new infrastructure employees -- architects, engineers, construction workers and others -- will have good-paying jobs creating our renovated platform. They will spend their pay on goods and services, which will be provided by businesses that will invest and hire in order to fill their orders. The economy will enter a self-reinforcing period of growth and prosperity.
To the extent it is necessary to pay for infrastructure with offsetting cuts or new taxes, I suggest three obvious targets: Substantial reductions of (1) our monstrous military budget, (2) our militarization of the southern border, and (3) our so-called "war against drugs".
It is not enough to be better than the Republicans. That is too low a bar.
6
There is no "easy part" of the analysis because it isn't an analysis. It's a circuit in a programmed robot with only one answer, whatever the programmer says.
Dr. Krugman, I agree with your evaluation of alternative Republican candidates - although it's hard to separate their real thoughts from what they feel they have to say to Republican primary voters.
Even Mitt Romney, possessor of a fairly impressive resume before he became a Republican hopeful, was unable to navigate that rock-filled stream.
If by some miracle Trump were to retire and Romney, the Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts, were to become the candidate, we would have an extremely interesting competition.
You might also consider who might be a Democratic candidate if there were no Hillary Clinton running for the past four years. By another miracle, she might have retired to comfortable grandmotherhood, or perhaps become a committed advocate for the narrow causes she apparently does believe in, i.e., actions to improve the lot of women and children throughout the world.
Even Mitt Romney, possessor of a fairly impressive resume before he became a Republican hopeful, was unable to navigate that rock-filled stream.
If by some miracle Trump were to retire and Romney, the Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts, were to become the candidate, we would have an extremely interesting competition.
You might also consider who might be a Democratic candidate if there were no Hillary Clinton running for the past four years. By another miracle, she might have retired to comfortable grandmotherhood, or perhaps become a committed advocate for the narrow causes she apparently does believe in, i.e., actions to improve the lot of women and children throughout the world.
4
Trump deserves credit for making our foreign trade imbalance a central issue. We’ve been waiting for that for years. The difference is that whereas politicians often make noises about it during a campaign, when they become President, they decide that it’s not a great concern compared to other issues (or some idea of “stability,” meaning not do anything) we might have in our relationships with China, Mexico, and others. Trump might be the only character whom it is conceivable of that as President, he would continue to see this as a top priority.
Every time I look at a US debt chart, I ask myself what changed around the year 1980 when that debt curve materially turned up? Reagan was president while the Congress was Democratic. The middle class was starting to shrink.
For all intents and purposes the US national debt continues upward unabated. Personal debt in the US is roughly $12T and national debt is $19T.
Could it be we are not as rich a nation as be think we are?
For all intents and purposes the US national debt continues upward unabated. Personal debt in the US is roughly $12T and national debt is $19T.
Could it be we are not as rich a nation as be think we are?
3
Its time to move beyond the fed providing most of the stimulus to the economy. Its time for the fed gov't to step forward and move with the private sector to fix the infrastructure and get the economy out of its doldrums,
6
Keynes was hired to create the fallacy that money works outside the strictures of logic once it gets into the magical hands of Progressives, and only the faithful really still blindly believe it. Krugman and his ilk conveniently forget Obama extending the Bush tax cuts for a year, wrongly thinking he could immediately start burning cash afterward, while he launched his attacks on business to please progressive zealots. The lists of failed green energy companies and bankrupted coal mines are eclipsed only by the millions of small businesses run into the ground by Progressive policies. Wisdom and courage should be the result of logic, not buzzwords used in a vain attempt to distract people from it.
2
STEVE--your claims are unsupported. The Bush tax cuts have gone away. Obama did not renew these. The 2008 September meltdown of the US economy was under Dubya. The US has recovered from this, but only after 8 years, and only if you look at stock prices. There are still many unemployed who are willing and eager to work.
Only the US government can undertake to improve highways and bridges. If private firms did this, it would be much slower and much more expensive, in terms of tolls and extra charges for the use of highways or seage treatment or drinking water--all essential for a modern society. These tolls and extra charges would also slow the economic recovery. The GOP congress will not pass these bills to reconstruct the infrastructure. So the Dems need to take over congress and the presidency.
Only the US government can undertake to improve highways and bridges. If private firms did this, it would be much slower and much more expensive, in terms of tolls and extra charges for the use of highways or seage treatment or drinking water--all essential for a modern society. These tolls and extra charges would also slow the economic recovery. The GOP congress will not pass these bills to reconstruct the infrastructure. So the Dems need to take over congress and the presidency.
6
Over 8,000 Megawatts of solar power in California alone, supplying nearly a fourth of the daily peak demand.
(Source: Cal ISO -- http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx)
Over 200,000 good-paying jobs designing and building solar power systems in the USA.
(Source: Solar Jobs Census -- http://solarstates.org/#states/jobs)
(Source: Cal ISO -- http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx)
Over 200,000 good-paying jobs designing and building solar power systems in the USA.
(Source: Solar Jobs Census -- http://solarstates.org/#states/jobs)
5
It is not a good idea to respond to a pretty-detailed set of tax proposals, and a detailed set of plans on how to spend the money, and a Krugman column on why this makes sense and won't produce miracles, with various forms of pixie dust.
3
The need for growth to maintain the system exposes our economy as a pyramid scheme.
Slow/no growth should be a positive goal, not a threat to our well being.
We have struggled collectively as a species for millennia with the goal always being to reduce the burden of toil. Now we have finally reached that goal and our technology does much of the work for us. Therefore, the mission now is how we deal with this new reality.
The solution is not to increase demand for labor by more growth, but rather to reduce the supply of labor to match what is actually needed. Earlier retirement, longer paid vacations and a guaranteed minimum income are a few examples of how to accomplish this.
Slow/no growth should be a positive goal, not a threat to our well being.
We have struggled collectively as a species for millennia with the goal always being to reduce the burden of toil. Now we have finally reached that goal and our technology does much of the work for us. Therefore, the mission now is how we deal with this new reality.
The solution is not to increase demand for labor by more growth, but rather to reduce the supply of labor to match what is actually needed. Earlier retirement, longer paid vacations and a guaranteed minimum income are a few examples of how to accomplish this.
7
Well said, Dr. Krugman. Honest modesty should count as wisdom, especially when the opposition is given to unsupported exaggeration. But let's also admit that the long-term slowdown in growth is likely to be permanent for reasons that are essentially beyond conventional economics.
I've argued here before that anyone hoping to understand this development should read (or re-read) Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century." He argues convincingly that the natural growth rate of western economies, measured over centuries, is 1% to 2% - kind of where we are right now. The 20th century was an aberration. The hyperkinetic growth was fueled by: 1) the fruition of the Industrial Revolution, 2) recovery from the capital destruction of 2 world wars, 3) recovery from the Great Depression, and 4) the Information/Computer revolution (which has disproportionally driven recent productivity and is now coming to an end). These historical conditions were unique. And now they are over.
Combine this with the Wallerstein model of world economies. "Core" economies (read: the West) maintain their advantage only if there are "peripheral" markets that buy finished products on favorable terms. Core economies must also control the means of trade. Now we are seeing the end of "emerging" economies and a marked decentralization of trade. Pooff: no more advantage to the West.
So it is not a mystery why the era of growth has come to an end. We were lucky it lasted this long...
I've argued here before that anyone hoping to understand this development should read (or re-read) Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century." He argues convincingly that the natural growth rate of western economies, measured over centuries, is 1% to 2% - kind of where we are right now. The 20th century was an aberration. The hyperkinetic growth was fueled by: 1) the fruition of the Industrial Revolution, 2) recovery from the capital destruction of 2 world wars, 3) recovery from the Great Depression, and 4) the Information/Computer revolution (which has disproportionally driven recent productivity and is now coming to an end). These historical conditions were unique. And now they are over.
Combine this with the Wallerstein model of world economies. "Core" economies (read: the West) maintain their advantage only if there are "peripheral" markets that buy finished products on favorable terms. Core economies must also control the means of trade. Now we are seeing the end of "emerging" economies and a marked decentralization of trade. Pooff: no more advantage to the West.
So it is not a mystery why the era of growth has come to an end. We were lucky it lasted this long...
4
Yes, Clinton's policy proposals are detailed, but the Tax Policy Center claim Krugman cites, that she'd "pay for what she promises" is incorrect; it estimates she'd fall slightly short of that. That's better than other candidates, but still inadequate. She must balance her budgets over 4 years (last done by her husband in 1998), or run a slight surplus. Along with Keynesian "pump priming" (running deficits) in bad years, you need to run a surplus during good years, and these years are probably as good as we'll get.
Krugman's concern with low GDP and productivity growth is misplaced. Our advanced economy is arguably post-industrial (fewer goods, more services), with a high standard of living. Instead of concentrating on growing both, concentrate on their distribution; as he well knows, gains go almost entirely to the top. Distributed more evenly, we have enough.
We also need to use existing natural, human, and financial resources much more efficiently. To slow climate change, we must leave most remaining fossil fuels in the ground. We have enough food, but we feed grain to cattle, feed caught fish to farmed ones, and raise water-hungry crops in arid areas, all of which are inefficient. We outsource production jobs, raising unemployment, then use fossil fuels to bring the goods back. Our education system does a poor job of producing human capital. Companies can find billions to buy each other, but we can't find the money for education, affordable housing, and infrastructure.
Krugman's concern with low GDP and productivity growth is misplaced. Our advanced economy is arguably post-industrial (fewer goods, more services), with a high standard of living. Instead of concentrating on growing both, concentrate on their distribution; as he well knows, gains go almost entirely to the top. Distributed more evenly, we have enough.
We also need to use existing natural, human, and financial resources much more efficiently. To slow climate change, we must leave most remaining fossil fuels in the ground. We have enough food, but we feed grain to cattle, feed caught fish to farmed ones, and raise water-hungry crops in arid areas, all of which are inefficient. We outsource production jobs, raising unemployment, then use fossil fuels to bring the goods back. Our education system does a poor job of producing human capital. Companies can find billions to buy each other, but we can't find the money for education, affordable housing, and infrastructure.
2
Efficiency means obtaining the most output for a given input, and if we can agree that slow growth and productivity are indicators of inefficiency, then our economy has become less efficient. In my view, this is largely a result of decades of policies that serve, intentionally or not, to concentrate wealth. Further, this concentration has occurred in hands seeking to invest more than to consume, thereby chasing diminishing returns from irrational and therefore inefficient investments. Demand has suffered in the process. Until we find the will to modify policies in a way intended to more widely distribute wealth we will continue to see slow growth. More importantly, we will continue to disenfranchise an unacceptable percentage of our people. We can and must do better. It's not growth, per se, it's fairness that we need.
The problem with Krugman's ideas for solving the problems we know how to solve is that they do not occur in economic vacuums. Krugman acts like increasing public healthcare spending, increasing Social Security and Medicare benefits (while raising taxes to pay for it), and increasing the minimum wage have no impact on economic growth. Of course, there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that all of those policies are anti-growth. To be certain, it cannot be argued that they have no effect on it!
I'm not sure where you get your "wealth of evidence" but it is decidedly contrary to my wealth of evidence. First public health spending and Medicare are one and the same. The recent evidence is that lowering the risk of medical expenditure and coverage increases people to undertake risk in business, leading to growth. Further foreclosure drop, leading to a better housing market. Social Security greatly reduces the drag on the economy of poor elderly. We pay these cost one way or the other. An insurance pool, with zero overhead, run by the government is not a hand out. Yes we might have to have our SSI rates increase because we are living longer. Or you can choose higher rate or wait longer for pay out. None of these undermine the economy. In fact they encourage private risk and investment by eliminating the all or nothing outcomes. So no, these do not undermined but enhance economic growth according to my "wealth of evidence".
5
think about all the people who are stupid enough to vote for trump. its a fairly large percentage of the population. is it reasonable to think that these same people many of whom are mired in the old industrial economy of the previous century are going to be capable of transitioning to the post industrial economy of this century. really when you have such a large segment of the population holding on to such antediluvian concepts such as creation theory is it possible to that they can be trained to participate in the 21st century economy. I think not. productivity will probably not increase until this group has gone extinct like the 6000 year old dinosaurs they believe in.
2
Krugman now asks for serenity to deal with problems instead of concrete, quantified policies. How about a national yoga class for relaxation during this crazy campaign? (camPAIN is a better spelling).
Krugman's candidate 1st veered toward Sanders ideas to get those votes, now veers to Repub ideas for those scared by Trump. A golden opportunity for HRC.
We have the world's highest student debt rate, ---it's profit making---and it's reported that it's interfering with grads' home buying, starting families, businesses.
Let's recall that for generations state taxes paid for public college tuition, expanding the middle class, who then paid back taxes with their higher earnings. This was not left wing at all.
We also have the world's highest medical care costs, burdening millions with high premiums, which with our taxes, prop up insurance/drug co profits. This expense takes money out of people's pockets that could be spent on consumer- buying for things they need---that's growth for small business profits, and maybe even more hiring.
We are seeing transfers of our wealth to profit making organizations like colleges and insurance co's to name a few.
Let's add the tax supported food stamps for under paid workers for one of the world's richest families--Walmart. Pure socialism for corporations--we all chip in.
But to propose changing this is too too left wing liberal for our politics. So we get Krugman columns trying to rationalize it all.
Krugman's candidate 1st veered toward Sanders ideas to get those votes, now veers to Repub ideas for those scared by Trump. A golden opportunity for HRC.
We have the world's highest student debt rate, ---it's profit making---and it's reported that it's interfering with grads' home buying, starting families, businesses.
Let's recall that for generations state taxes paid for public college tuition, expanding the middle class, who then paid back taxes with their higher earnings. This was not left wing at all.
We also have the world's highest medical care costs, burdening millions with high premiums, which with our taxes, prop up insurance/drug co profits. This expense takes money out of people's pockets that could be spent on consumer- buying for things they need---that's growth for small business profits, and maybe even more hiring.
We are seeing transfers of our wealth to profit making organizations like colleges and insurance co's to name a few.
Let's add the tax supported food stamps for under paid workers for one of the world's richest families--Walmart. Pure socialism for corporations--we all chip in.
But to propose changing this is too too left wing liberal for our politics. So we get Krugman columns trying to rationalize it all.
8
"...try to dismiss Hillary Clinton’s dominance in the polls ..." Overall, plus the polls, it's this: http://pollyvote.com, a composite 6% lead by Hil. '538' is about the same.
So, she's going to win and hopefully we take back the Senate.
But, we are going to have another recession soon. 2008 was a long time ago. We don't go longer than this without a recession. It' like clock work. Pundits say "50 months." That was a long time ago.
And, here I go again: We need a national job market to take care of those for whom even a mild recession is a disaster; plus it would help everyone else. Families who are one pay-check away from becoming homeless would be able to have their rent-earner get another job immediately--on-line. (Setting it up online nationally would be relatively a snap.)
Then they could go to the land lord/lady and present this. Huge difference.
The government would need to help, federal at first, in case the job requires travel. (One car in the family. Kids. Travel to new job by bus. Need help setting-up for work. Government money.)
End of story. Could Congressional Republicans be persuaded? Of course not, not if Obama or Hillary or any other Democrat is POTUS. What then?
It might only take one Congress person, Dem. or Repub., to campaign in Congress until they are blue in the face (or red, excuse me, red is good too.) Who knows.
So, she's going to win and hopefully we take back the Senate.
But, we are going to have another recession soon. 2008 was a long time ago. We don't go longer than this without a recession. It' like clock work. Pundits say "50 months." That was a long time ago.
And, here I go again: We need a national job market to take care of those for whom even a mild recession is a disaster; plus it would help everyone else. Families who are one pay-check away from becoming homeless would be able to have their rent-earner get another job immediately--on-line. (Setting it up online nationally would be relatively a snap.)
Then they could go to the land lord/lady and present this. Huge difference.
The government would need to help, federal at first, in case the job requires travel. (One car in the family. Kids. Travel to new job by bus. Need help setting-up for work. Government money.)
End of story. Could Congressional Republicans be persuaded? Of course not, not if Obama or Hillary or any other Democrat is POTUS. What then?
It might only take one Congress person, Dem. or Repub., to campaign in Congress until they are blue in the face (or red, excuse me, red is good too.) Who knows.
1
I would argue that in fact, we are very much reaping what Reagan sowed now. His articulation of the case against government, and his tax cuts designed to "starve the beast" of government spending still has outsize influence on us today.
6
The best wisdom is looking around the world for a soupçon of relief. If none is found, read the abandoned writings of the “minor post-Ricardian autodidact” as the mainstream economics has failed.
Ever since the cut-throat automated production enters its final stretch stage, the average rate of profit of the world has plummeted and capital investment faltered, causing growth slide unstoppable. If this downward trend could be reversed by any of the conceivable policy tweaking or political arm-twisting, why would the economy remain in a “mysterious decline?” Something more fundamental than superficial remedies of the mainstream economics can offer should be sought for. In addition to the falling profitability, there is the decline of value content in commodity that runs against the trend of growth as well. Automation not only saves labor power in production but also saves social value created in goods for exchange, because worker’s working time under automation is much less devoted to create value for paying back the advanced wage and much more to create surplus value for the bottom line of capital. Since the surplus value belongs only to capital, its sole owner, social value content of the commodity suffers greater loss. As value content of money reflects social value content of production of society, money in a society with cut-throat automated production thus suffers devaluation together with commodity-price-deflation and over-production resulting in low or no growth.
Ever since the cut-throat automated production enters its final stretch stage, the average rate of profit of the world has plummeted and capital investment faltered, causing growth slide unstoppable. If this downward trend could be reversed by any of the conceivable policy tweaking or political arm-twisting, why would the economy remain in a “mysterious decline?” Something more fundamental than superficial remedies of the mainstream economics can offer should be sought for. In addition to the falling profitability, there is the decline of value content in commodity that runs against the trend of growth as well. Automation not only saves labor power in production but also saves social value created in goods for exchange, because worker’s working time under automation is much less devoted to create value for paying back the advanced wage and much more to create surplus value for the bottom line of capital. Since the surplus value belongs only to capital, its sole owner, social value content of the commodity suffers greater loss. As value content of money reflects social value content of production of society, money in a society with cut-throat automated production thus suffers devaluation together with commodity-price-deflation and over-production resulting in low or no growth.
2
At what point does Krugman believe that an ever-growing deficit can do economic harm? Does such a number even exist for him? Also, a little slow on noting the long-term slump in labor force participation. I hope, but find unlikely, that this is the end of Krugman extolling the low unemployment rate as a key metric of national economic health. Third and last point - the fallacious reasoning that the United States needs to adopt policy because other developed countries have really, really needs to stop. There are major, major problems with the European health care system that, at the very least, make a civilized discussion about the benefits of socialized health care necessary. It also takes a LOT of money to cover all the self-inflicted disease - diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis, lung cancer - that many Americans bring upon themselves. Again, it warrants a serious discussion about whether a society owes it to each and every constituent to protect them from the consequences of their every decision.
2
I am 60. I was a broker for a dozen years and was a civil service CPA for a few years before that. I become a NYC tour guide in 2004, received an inheritance in 2010. When my tour company fired me in January, 2013, I left the work force. I am very fat and anticipated so much rejection that I did not even try to find work. I think a third or more of the prime age adults who have left the work force are people like me who have enough financial resources to get by, but cannot handle the rejection they'll receive looking for work, or are living in areas where there are NO jobs at all.
If we invest $4+ trillion in infrastructure, those investments could stimulate enough demand to get 10 to 15 million people back in the labor force. No matter their age, appearance, or education, nearly all would end up with well paying jobs, without dealing with a great deal of rejection.
In addition to infrastructure investment, 2 major labor market changes would make individuals, of every age, much more emotionally and financially secure. One, workers should be treated as employees with benefits, not as independent contractors without rights. Two, ALL state and local pension plans in the USA should all be subsumed under and into the federal employee pension plan.
If we invest $4+ trillion in infrastructure, those investments could stimulate enough demand to get 10 to 15 million people back in the labor force. No matter their age, appearance, or education, nearly all would end up with well paying jobs, without dealing with a great deal of rejection.
In addition to infrastructure investment, 2 major labor market changes would make individuals, of every age, much more emotionally and financially secure. One, workers should be treated as employees with benefits, not as independent contractors without rights. Two, ALL state and local pension plans in the USA should all be subsumed under and into the federal employee pension plan.
9
Mr. Krugman fails to address the issues that are the core of this election. Illegal (and legal) immigration which lowers wages, free trade which benefits the multinational corporations and elites, and the lack of acknowledgement that these policies, by the establishment, haven't done much for a whole bunch of people, no matter the parties in office. Mrs. Clinton doesn't address this either in her economic proposals.
Mrs. Clinton's economic vision of:
"incremental but fairly large increases in high-income tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety net."
is more of the same economic pablum that the establishment has dished out, and without real results for many in this country.
Maybe Mr. Krugman can find joy in this economic proposal. The rest of us are still waiting for Mrs Clinton and Mr. Krugman to realize that it's not acceptable to parrot the same old ideas as successes anymore.
Mrs. Clinton's economic vision of:
"incremental but fairly large increases in high-income tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety net."
is more of the same economic pablum that the establishment has dished out, and without real results for many in this country.
Maybe Mr. Krugman can find joy in this economic proposal. The rest of us are still waiting for Mrs Clinton and Mr. Krugman to realize that it's not acceptable to parrot the same old ideas as successes anymore.
6
Dear Paul Krugman, low productivity its no mystery, take it from a layman. Pay people more so they don't have to take two jobs, pay for their healthcare and their children's day care. They'll produce more. Treat them better an not as expendable cogs in a wheel and they'll produce even more. You don't need to be an economist for this piece of advice.
7
The question I am asking myself is whether this column is one of contented resignation for years of little economic growth because Hillary Clinton will be president or only an admission by Paul Krugman that the way to increasing growth is not understood so low growth calls for resignation no matter the president.
3
Krugman would have us believe that Hillary is making sensible and courageous economic proposals. For the economics of climate change -- the most dangerous problem we face -- Hillary falls short.
Here's a simple economic fact: As long as fossil fuels are cheaper than clean energy, we won't turn to clean energy as a replacement. Many experts agree that the best way to promote clean energy is with a carbon tax now. All other talk about goals for CO2 reduction in the future is meaningless happy talk. It's the price that counts and a carbon tax would push us toward making fossil fuels more expensive than clean energy.
Hillary refuses to even mention a carbon tax. It would be, supposedly, politically impossible. But going for what's badly needed, not ignoring it because it's opposed by the fossil fuel industry, requires political leadership and courage.
Her proposal to increase the use of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" increases climate change and keeps the fossil fuel industry happy, while lulling us into thinking we're doing something meaningful.
On climate change Hillary lacks leadership and courage. The well being of our planet is at stake. What could be more important?
Here's a simple economic fact: As long as fossil fuels are cheaper than clean energy, we won't turn to clean energy as a replacement. Many experts agree that the best way to promote clean energy is with a carbon tax now. All other talk about goals for CO2 reduction in the future is meaningless happy talk. It's the price that counts and a carbon tax would push us toward making fossil fuels more expensive than clean energy.
Hillary refuses to even mention a carbon tax. It would be, supposedly, politically impossible. But going for what's badly needed, not ignoring it because it's opposed by the fossil fuel industry, requires political leadership and courage.
Her proposal to increase the use of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" increases climate change and keeps the fossil fuel industry happy, while lulling us into thinking we're doing something meaningful.
On climate change Hillary lacks leadership and courage. The well being of our planet is at stake. What could be more important?
1
So, focus on (re)distribution and "fairness" at the expense of -- or at least forget about -- economic growth? I'm not sure you're going to like where the end of that road is. And, me, I'm not running away from the "real" (as opposed to the "fake"?) issues that divide us, but I think "us" is mostly the far right and the far left. And both of those camps are doing their utmost to further divide the compromise-prone center by tugging their mostest at the centrists in their respective parties.
The socialist term of abuse for liberals is "neoliberal" -- in that, I completely agree with Jonathan Chait. If a government program isn't the solution you proffer for every problem, you're a neoliberal. Republicans -- some Republicans -- are trying to undo the twentieth century. (See Richard Luettgen's comment, where he, as is his wont, tries to foist upon us a debate about the proper role of the government.)
I think there is undoubtedly much substance in the Republican critique of modern America: over-regulated, too government-dependent, and so forth. And I think there is also undoubtedly much substance in the progressive critique of America. But we can take many roads to get to a fairer economy, a more responsive government, and so on. What "intellectual polarization" shows is that a poorly performing economy will inspire radical proposals as solutions.
We need a sensible centrist who isn't afraid to be an experimentalist. At heart, that is what Clinton is. The platform means little.
The socialist term of abuse for liberals is "neoliberal" -- in that, I completely agree with Jonathan Chait. If a government program isn't the solution you proffer for every problem, you're a neoliberal. Republicans -- some Republicans -- are trying to undo the twentieth century. (See Richard Luettgen's comment, where he, as is his wont, tries to foist upon us a debate about the proper role of the government.)
I think there is undoubtedly much substance in the Republican critique of modern America: over-regulated, too government-dependent, and so forth. And I think there is also undoubtedly much substance in the progressive critique of America. But we can take many roads to get to a fairer economy, a more responsive government, and so on. What "intellectual polarization" shows is that a poorly performing economy will inspire radical proposals as solutions.
We need a sensible centrist who isn't afraid to be an experimentalist. At heart, that is what Clinton is. The platform means little.
5
"I think there is undoubtedly much substance in the Republican critique of modern America: over-regulated, too government-dependent, and so forth. "
Even the government worshiping NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to impose or increase, has said on numerous occasions that "government is always inefficient and usually corrupt" so the bigger the government the more inefficiency and corruption.
Even the government worshiping NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to impose or increase, has said on numerous occasions that "government is always inefficient and usually corrupt" so the bigger the government the more inefficiency and corruption.
2
Why is faster aggregate economic growth the unquestioned priority, rather than a reallocation of income and output to serve our needs better? The US is already rich enough to afford everyone a decent standard of living, to support a well-functioning infrastructure, and to provide superior educational and health opportunities. Yet, that output goes to maintain a bloated national security and military apparatus, to enable the super-wealthy to add to their piles, and to provide monopoly rents to sheltered corporations. Growth has its own costs. Why not focus on doing better with what we already have?
10
President Obama and our next President - Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton - know how to play the hand they're dealt. That is the secret to their success. It took the democracy-destroying money masters behind today's republican operatives 40+ years to try to break America's backbone - the middle class - and it will take a few years to recover. It is time for the wealthiest to get substantially taxed-back for all the wealth they have stolen and to invest wisely in our social safety net and infrastructure.
We do not need "driverless" cars, drone delivery, robots to replace people or private space travel and I do not want anymore of my taxpayer money spent on them. Put the money into improved mass transit for urban areas and safe bridges across America.
We do not need "driverless" cars, drone delivery, robots to replace people or private space travel and I do not want anymore of my taxpayer money spent on them. Put the money into improved mass transit for urban areas and safe bridges across America.
15
Additional courage and wisdom to fight for economic growth comes from pushing back on the current anti-trade, anti-immigrant nativism stand of Trumpism.
Civilizations have prospered from the beginning of civilization by expanding trade, but it has been scapegoated by charlatans like Trump.
Likewise with immigrants.
40% of all Fortune 500 companies have been founded by immigrants, hiring 3.6 million workers and producing $1.7 trillion in revenue.
Companies like Google, eBay, Yahoo!, AT & T, Comcast, Kohl's, Nordstrom, Kraft and Goldman Sachs were founded by immigrants.
We need to attract the brightest minds from around the world, right along with all hard working people willing to contribute to America's growth, in order to continue to grow and prosper as the working age population declines in advanced economies around the world.
Anyone of a certain age understands that only through education, training and the ability to adapt will people thrive through changing landscapes.
Closing borders and creating trade friction will not protect jobs or standards of living. That is a lie told to the gullible who respond out of fear.
Civilizations have prospered from the beginning of civilization by expanding trade, but it has been scapegoated by charlatans like Trump.
Likewise with immigrants.
40% of all Fortune 500 companies have been founded by immigrants, hiring 3.6 million workers and producing $1.7 trillion in revenue.
Companies like Google, eBay, Yahoo!, AT & T, Comcast, Kohl's, Nordstrom, Kraft and Goldman Sachs were founded by immigrants.
We need to attract the brightest minds from around the world, right along with all hard working people willing to contribute to America's growth, in order to continue to grow and prosper as the working age population declines in advanced economies around the world.
Anyone of a certain age understands that only through education, training and the ability to adapt will people thrive through changing landscapes.
Closing borders and creating trade friction will not protect jobs or standards of living. That is a lie told to the gullible who respond out of fear.
6
I'm not sure how mysterious the low labor market participation numbers are. Isn't the general trend of modernity towards fewer workers, greater automation, higher profit margins for the capitalists (meaning literally, the owners of the means of production)? If productivity increases, labor participation decreases. If greater employment is the goal, the government absolutely should hire people to build and maintain public infrastructure and resources (roads, bridges, public buildings, schools, parks) on a vastly greater scale than we currently do. Take the higher tax margin for the wealthiest earners and use it to put people to work.
1
The Kennedy administration got a tax cut through in the early 1960s which helped fuel the economy, but the highest tax rate at that time was 90%. The Republicans keep using the Kennedy example for their constant drum beat for tax cuts. Yes, Ronald Reagan had tax cuts, but he also raised taxes in 1986, something that Republican never talk about and he left a huge deficit. We can not tax cut ourselves into prosperity. We need programs like rebuilding our worn out infrastructure. Trump promises to bring back manufacturing jobs, but that ship has really sailed. We manufacture off shore, because it is cheaper to do so. We need a higher educated populace that can do the jobs of 21st century America. We need retraining and possibly government subsidies in order for some existing manufacturing companies to hire people. Robots are used to make today's automobiles, so we need people who know how to run the robots. That takes an educated work force.
3
Clinton needs to convince her hedge fund and investment banker friends that taxes increases are in their best interest. The last time the US had demagogues with large followings was during the Depression. Roosevelt defeated them and saved capitalism by creating the safety net and regulating the financial system. We are at a similar point today. If we are not careful, Trump may be just the first of many.
4
Democracy excels at incremental change in the face of crisis.
We are not yet the proverbial Frogs Boiling for Dinner in the pot of economic inequality and stagnation; but, the water is getting very, very hot. Will Hillary's gradually turning down the heat be enough to save us?
We are not yet the proverbial Frogs Boiling for Dinner in the pot of economic inequality and stagnation; but, the water is getting very, very hot. Will Hillary's gradually turning down the heat be enough to save us?
1
Amazing what a 10 point propaganda driven poll lead can do to the turgid prose of an, in the tank call em as Hillary sees em, relentlessly partisan apologist for all things Clinton. I don't believe a word of your analysis because you have no idea of what wisdom and courage mean. Mrs. Clinton's "courage" was on full display at her last news conference that wasn't stage managed.....oh I forgot there wasn't one. Her wisdom was illustrated in dodging any questions that might prove embarrassing in such a wonderfully dismissive way "at this point, what difference does it make, the herd er I mean the voters have heard Bill and I say many times that this is old news and we need to move on." The election is far from over Mr. Krugman so sharpen your hatchet for Mr. Trump and by all means continue the charade of Hillary Schillary, but keep your fingers crossed, there is still a press in this country and someone might just start asking some questions. Not you of course.
5
Somewhere, I imagine George Orwell is laughing. Not with you,mof course, at you.
Paul:
Don't you think it's hypocritical of you to urge Hillary to have "courage" to be bold about her economic agenda, when you lacked the courage to push back against your corporate directive to support her instead of the guy who preaches what your old self preached?
Don't you think it's hypocritical of you to urge Hillary to have "courage" to be bold about her economic agenda, when you lacked the courage to push back against your corporate directive to support her instead of the guy who preaches what your old self preached?
7
Excellent. It's hard to believe that Krugman, Blow, Kristof, Friedman and Collins (maybe Collins really does believe in HRC) were directed from on high to produce the columns they have so disgracefully presented, but the facts are plain - calling Clinton's lies "fibs", and ignoring her so many flaws, prove that it has happened.
Only Maureen Dowd, may God bless her, has maintained her integrity.
Only Maureen Dowd, may God bless her, has maintained her integrity.
2
Dr. Krugman, first you recommended 20% inflation to prop up the economy. As a senior citizen with savings I of course appreciated that a whole lot.
But then in defense of Hillary you asserted that Wall Street banks really were blameless in causing the 2008 financial collapse.
After that, Dr. Krugman, I will never read your column again except to see what the enemy is up to.
Sad, because I was once on your side.
after your assertion that Wall street abnks were really blameless in the 2008 financial collapse
But then in defense of Hillary you asserted that Wall Street banks really were blameless in causing the 2008 financial collapse.
After that, Dr. Krugman, I will never read your column again except to see what the enemy is up to.
Sad, because I was once on your side.
after your assertion that Wall street abnks were really blameless in the 2008 financial collapse
5
Minor technical detail: Krugman said none of that.
He said that you couldn't simply blame banks, because much of the problem was in new financial orgs like AIG.
He said that we'd be better off with mild inflation, because inflation means that demand and wages and interest rates--on your savings, among other things--have risen.
He said that you couldn't simply blame banks, because much of the problem was in new financial orgs like AIG.
He said that we'd be better off with mild inflation, because inflation means that demand and wages and interest rates--on your savings, among other things--have risen.
A "mysterious " growth !!!!!!
Krugman is this your way of indicating the truth about the state of the economy in order to somewhat preserve the Obama 's and possibly Hillary's economic policies?
Stagnation is real and once the summer jobs end employment stats will probably look grim just before the election.
Krugman is this your way of indicating the truth about the state of the economy in order to somewhat preserve the Obama 's and possibly Hillary's economic policies?
Stagnation is real and once the summer jobs end employment stats will probably look grim just before the election.
2
Maybe we should stop thinking about how to fix the economy, and start thinking about how to fix the country.
I remember the Bush tax cuts very well. I also remember envisioning pretty much the world we have today becoming the result.
It seems to me that if we decide what kind of people we want to be and what kind of country we want to have, the economy would take care of itself.
We have embraced greed as a way of life. It is not leading us anywhere good.
I remember the Bush tax cuts very well. I also remember envisioning pretty much the world we have today becoming the result.
It seems to me that if we decide what kind of people we want to be and what kind of country we want to have, the economy would take care of itself.
We have embraced greed as a way of life. It is not leading us anywhere good.
4
The Krugman delusion, he calls "trying" his week suggestion that Hillary should grace us with considering borrowing and investing heavily in infrastructure because that is the right thing to do for the economy. Maybe he conveniently forgets there was a candidate whose whole platform was to invest heavily in employment, infrastructure and education, his name.... Bernie Sanders. What a joke Paul, what a joke...
4
If you think this column's a joke, you oughta read Bernie's health care and economic plans.
They're serious knee-slappers, once and all.
Each begins, "Once upon a time, there was a lonely princess who lived in a magical tower..."
They're serious knee-slappers, once and all.
Each begins, "Once upon a time, there was a lonely princess who lived in a magical tower..."
1
@Joaquin. There is no complaint that Bernie Sanders or his supporters couldn't have addressed with about 4 million more votes. There are numerous reasons why Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton. I, for one, found his political philosophy to be more in line with mine. But I also know that he spent 35 years in Congress without a single piece of legislation to his name that transformed any part of that philosophy into any kind of law. I think he's great at railing at stuff; not so great at getting stuff done. I could go on but, honestly, when are you going to deal with the candidates who actually won the primaries and are now running for President?
Robots make robots which make widgets.
Manufacturing jobs are not coming back.
Manufacturing jobs are not coming back.
1
"...It’s very much a center-left vision..."
Thus, it's just more of the same ideas.
Aren't there any new, out of the box, ideas that don't just pander to the same ideas and same constituencies? It's a new century, with new realities that need new ideas.
Thus, it's just more of the same ideas.
Aren't there any new, out of the box, ideas that don't just pander to the same ideas and same constituencies? It's a new century, with new realities that need new ideas.
2
The slowdown in the growth rate of GDP per capita over the past few decades was partly caused by the drop in the fraction of the GDP spent on research and development which fell from nearly 12 percent in 1965 to less than 4 percent now. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Budget%3B.jpg
2
While reading this, I had a sudden flash of insight. Firstly, growth cannot continue endlessly. Shrinking population numbers in developed countries is part of the story. With so many of former manufacturing and other jobs overseas our economy has been reduced to low-paying service industries. Meanwhile most of today's profits go to the renter class. Infrastructure crumbles. Polluting energy sources continue to be popular. But there is another way and that would involve higher social contributions of wealth to the population as a whole. While women speak of equal pay, no one speaks about a guaranteed job for women who want one. Is that feminism to ignore the numbers of our sisters who are suffering and struggling? With a decreasing availability of good jobs and the destruction of labor unions, I would suggest that we move toward a reduced work week compensated to include the actual cost of food and shelter and the monies to offer the people whatever activities would enhance increased leisure time.
When I go to the grocery store, my brain becomes addled over the mere quantities of different brands of household cleaners, vinegars, ice creams, snacks and beer. When choice becomes a burden, something should be done. We are doing too much in the name of profits.
When I go to the grocery store, my brain becomes addled over the mere quantities of different brands of household cleaners, vinegars, ice creams, snacks and beer. When choice becomes a burden, something should be done. We are doing too much in the name of profits.
5
I was just back in the states for the summer. My family lives in Europe. Less choice here, and the stores close at 6. No Sunday shopping. Glorious. It has reduced the time I spend on thinking about consumer stuff.
Less is more. Being able to live without worrying too much. Americans are being strangled by capitalism.
Less is more. Being able to live without worrying too much. Americans are being strangled by capitalism.
10
Yvonne, that's one way to look at it. My kids don't go to stores anymore, they shop online and their order is shipped to their doorstep. Less is more for them because they are saddled with college loans, but want to dress decent and eat decent.
1
Not really a mystery: for the first time in history white men are competing on a fairly equal footing with women and minorities. That, plus automation.
White male privilege is over, so they're feeling the pinch of increased labor supply. Sorry, but there it is--mystery solved.
White male privilege is over, so they're feeling the pinch of increased labor supply. Sorry, but there it is--mystery solved.
2
Amen.
Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer?
I think the Trump campaign has followed a different version of that:
"God grant me the strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference."
Source: Calvin (first-grader; best-friends with a stuffed tiger)
I think the Trump campaign has followed a different version of that:
"God grant me the strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference."
Source: Calvin (first-grader; best-friends with a stuffed tiger)
1
Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try. I’d argue, in particular, for substantially more infrastructure spending than Mrs. Clinton is currently proposing, and more borrowing to pay for it.
This is a most encouraging and rational comment. Thank you Paul.
By the way, Paul, wanting to try to generate a healthcare system and an economic system that works for everyone and not just the Royals/People of Quality/1%ers is not happy talk about wondrous growth. It is taking steps i n an ultimately achievable goal.
As for Reinhold Niebuhr’s famous Serenity Prayer, its the part about "the wisdom to know the difference.” that doesn't work. How does one know what one cannot change until one tries to change it? Imagine what the story would be if Jesus operated on Niebuhr policy. It's a quit before you start thing. It sound really nice, but, well it lets all the air out of the tires. It's sort of a cop out for not trying.
This is a most encouraging and rational comment. Thank you Paul.
By the way, Paul, wanting to try to generate a healthcare system and an economic system that works for everyone and not just the Royals/People of Quality/1%ers is not happy talk about wondrous growth. It is taking steps i n an ultimately achievable goal.
As for Reinhold Niebuhr’s famous Serenity Prayer, its the part about "the wisdom to know the difference.” that doesn't work. How does one know what one cannot change until one tries to change it? Imagine what the story would be if Jesus operated on Niebuhr policy. It's a quit before you start thing. It sound really nice, but, well it lets all the air out of the tires. It's sort of a cop out for not trying.
Pardon me if I consider getting 20 million more people insured, as well as expanding protections against insurers, at least a decent start.
1
Change? How does the Serenity Prayer help you deal with climate change? Dr K has often stated that the economics of tackling climate change are not unrealistic. Why then can't we get serious about this rather than stewing like frogs in a boiling pot?
1
As the globe gets warmer, people's tempers are bound to rise as well. Then serenity prayer will help everyone here in the west as it has in poor developing, tropical, hot dusty climates.
1
Krugman's pseudo-scientific, fascist faith in anti-ideological, short-range, Pragmatist, unlimited govt is noted. His anti-scientific evasion of the historically unique massive and continuing production increases of 300 years of capitalism is noted. His evasion of the 2B people, over the last 30 years in Asia, So. America and Africa(?), who have risen from historical poverty to the middle "class" is noted. Leftists dont want to help the poor and middle class. They lust for the nihilist destruction of the rich and capitalism. See Atlas Shrugged for more.
1
@Stephen G. Ayn Rand. I too once thought she was spot-on. That was when I was thirteen. Then I completed my education, traveled outside the U.S., and learned that Atlas Shrugged was the puerile, silly fiction of a deeply disturbed and selfish woman. Atlas Shrugged... Jeesh.
5
The silly little attempt at threats (who's doing all this noting?) is noted, as is the ridiculousness of taking "Atlas Shrugged," seriously.
Loved the bit about being an anti-ideological "Fascist," though it did kinda give away the fact that you guys just throw shiny words together pretty much at random.
Loved the bit about being an anti-ideological "Fascist," though it did kinda give away the fact that you guys just throw shiny words together pretty much at random.
4
If Trump released his tax returns, do you think that his support would plummet to zero?
2
If he could no longer call himself a billionaire ...
Infrastructure. Infrastructure, Infrastructure....
They have not found a way, yet, to fully automate the process of moving dirt or laying down asphalt and concrete or building water and sewer plants. Good paying jobs, all.
This Nation needs to spend trillions of dollars to bring our decaying infrastructure back up to standards. It is imperative if we are to remain the world's #1 superpower that we have the world's #1 Infrastructure.
The jobs and the skills and the community building that will accompany this will keep America humming for generations.
We just need the courage to say to the naysayers in the republican party; "Yes We Can!"
They have not found a way, yet, to fully automate the process of moving dirt or laying down asphalt and concrete or building water and sewer plants. Good paying jobs, all.
This Nation needs to spend trillions of dollars to bring our decaying infrastructure back up to standards. It is imperative if we are to remain the world's #1 superpower that we have the world's #1 Infrastructure.
The jobs and the skills and the community building that will accompany this will keep America humming for generations.
We just need the courage to say to the naysayers in the republican party; "Yes We Can!"
3
As long as the democrats demand that all infrastructure repair work be restricted to "prevailing wage" union members who will then kickback most of their union dues to the democrats why should the GOP approve infrastructure funding knowing that a percentage of it will become union kickbacks to the democrats?
4
I am sorry that you're offended by the thought of workers making decent money, and being allowed any say in the political process.
By the way, unions aren't allowed to put money into elections. They have to form PACs, and cannot fund them with dues or union money.
Sorry about that, too.
By the way, unions aren't allowed to put money into elections. They have to form PACs, and cannot fund them with dues or union money.
Sorry about that, too.
2
We could legalize the 10 million to 15 million undocumented/illegal immigrants so that they could pay taxes and start buying homes. That would certainly add to demand.
1
Pickety suggests that two percent is a long running historical norm for growth. We might want to take that into account.
1
Clinton will further sell out the middle class for a few token giveaways to the "poor". Higher taxes on income and savings, higher health insurance costs, lower wages, fewer jobs (unless you are in a favored union), not to mention more defense (and aggression) spending in the Middle East and eastern Europe, ...
4
Lack of growth comes from a lack of INVESTMENT. No one is investing in anything anymore. Corporate moguls have to satisfy Wall Street, so they focus on the next quarter's earnings, not the overall future of their companies. They slash R&D budgets, commoditize the intellectual capacity it takes to actually INVENT something and bring all the profits home to a tiny minority of paper-pushers and wheeler-dealers at the top.
Our federal government is no better. We have a D+ rating in infrastructure from the society of civil engineers that says we need $3.6 TRILLION in infrastructure investment. Hillary's bold plan is $275 billion. Are you kidding me?
We don't invest in our people...
We don't invest in our infrastructure...
We don't invest in our children or their education...
We don't even want to PAY the engineers and scientists we rely on to discover the "next internet"...
Gee whiz...and now we have no growth! What a surprise!
Our federal government is no better. We have a D+ rating in infrastructure from the society of civil engineers that says we need $3.6 TRILLION in infrastructure investment. Hillary's bold plan is $275 billion. Are you kidding me?
We don't invest in our people...
We don't invest in our infrastructure...
We don't invest in our children or their education...
We don't even want to PAY the engineers and scientists we rely on to discover the "next internet"...
Gee whiz...and now we have no growth! What a surprise!
5
i agree with you that we need (and have needed for the past decade) more infrastructure spending and increased, targeted taxes to pay for it.
but i've disagreed with your opposition to the fed's raising interest rates a bit. doing so would increase demand-based spending by the middle class, who rely, directly and indirectly (through the growth in retirement and insurance accounts) upon investment income.
it does not appear that retaining historically low interest rates is playing much of a role in business expansion; what might play a role is the understanding that available consumer capital induced spending rates would increase (as for example occurs when currency exchange rates fluctuate).
but i've disagreed with your opposition to the fed's raising interest rates a bit. doing so would increase demand-based spending by the middle class, who rely, directly and indirectly (through the growth in retirement and insurance accounts) upon investment income.
it does not appear that retaining historically low interest rates is playing much of a role in business expansion; what might play a role is the understanding that available consumer capital induced spending rates would increase (as for example occurs when currency exchange rates fluctuate).
1
"We do, in fact, know how to provide essential health care to everyone; most advanced countries do it."
Yes, single payer, but Krugman is against it because it's "politically impossible", despite the fact that a majority of the public is for it. Instead, the solution that WAS politically possible has left 20 million uninsured, and most of us with unaffordable copays and deductibles.
An economist who can claim that "the U.S. has done reasonably well at recovering from the 2007-2009 financial crisis" is either out of touch with the realities facing the bottom 4/5ths of the country (unthinkable for an economist - anxiety and misery are easy to quantify), or the economist is attempting to defend a status quo that the top fifth finds quite appealing - and that the .1% finds quite profitable.
Yes, single payer, but Krugman is against it because it's "politically impossible", despite the fact that a majority of the public is for it. Instead, the solution that WAS politically possible has left 20 million uninsured, and most of us with unaffordable copays and deductibles.
An economist who can claim that "the U.S. has done reasonably well at recovering from the 2007-2009 financial crisis" is either out of touch with the realities facing the bottom 4/5ths of the country (unthinkable for an economist - anxiety and misery are easy to quantify), or the economist is attempting to defend a status quo that the top fifth finds quite appealing - and that the .1% finds quite profitable.
4
Although more infrastructure spending is everyone's favorite go-to for increasing economic activity, all infrastructure is spending is not equal. Spending on expanding high speed internet connectivity is not equal to adding a 5th lane to a 4 lane highway. I'd feel better if Ms. Clinton's policies reflected this thinking.
I'd also postulate that we spend too much money in our budget on old people and not enough on the next generation. Investing in the education and health of young Americans is important for long run growth and is woefully neglected. Yes Mr. Krugman, we can afford to raise more tax income to keep social security / medicare solvent but the numbers now are so lopsided towards older Americans that re-calibration is needed.
I'd also postulate that we spend too much money in our budget on old people and not enough on the next generation. Investing in the education and health of young Americans is important for long run growth and is woefully neglected. Yes Mr. Krugman, we can afford to raise more tax income to keep social security / medicare solvent but the numbers now are so lopsided towards older Americans that re-calibration is needed.
2
I usually look to Gail Collins for humor in the NYT but the sentence "none of Donald Trump’s actual rivals for the nomination bore any resemblance to their imaginary candidate, a sensible, moderate conservative with good ideas." made for a real belly laugh. Fantasy football punditry is right! The fact that in 2nd place to Trump was Cruz was scary and still astonishes. What happened to the boring, old GOP?
2
The insane cannot distinguish sanity from insanity- notwithstanding there are fundamental regulatory (and other) flaws in the US and global economy that pose systemic risk that only the insane would ignore. Advice to Clinton: At the least heed Warren and others with commonsense regulatory reform that would strengthen Dodd-Frank.
2
It may be too much to hope for, but I'd love to see someone at the Times explain how a world with finite resources can reasonably expect unlimited, exponential economic growth (modest or "fantastic") year after year. Something's got to give.
9
Most of the fall off in growth since 2016 is from the inadequate recovery, this blog is being (what's a gentler way to say dishonest) misleading by implying otherwise. Growth pre economic crisis wasn't spectacular, but hardly the anemic post crisis average either. Not just lack of stimulus but actual contraction of government spending for most of period is at fault post crisis. Previous to that, it's not hard to find quarrel with the Bush administration's economic policy and prioritis, which consisted mostly of tax cuts for the rich, 80% of which are now permanent, thank you Obama and sell out Democrats. This blog has difficulty with that because for a long time (until such time as a convenient academic opening in NYC became desirable) the stance here stated that inequality didn't affect growth, money will go to buy yachts instead of chevys, unfortunate but growth will proceed. Then reality interceded, hence a fascination with mythical secular stag, vs restoring new deal, cutting inequality, and non stop arguments for stimulus, vs. always playing defense. (Also six month war of choice with Bernie Bros)
1
When will Hillary Clinton have the wisdom and courage to release the transcripts of the speeches she made in 2013, 2014, and 2015 in exchange for $21 million added to her personal wealth?
Clinton’s wealth dwarfs that of the working families whose interests she is promising to champion, as she did so in a speech in the Detroit area last Thursday, when she accused Trump of being interested in helping “only millionaires like himself.”
She gave most of her highly-paid speeches to major corporate interests that might well benefit from decisions made by her as the next President.
Clinton’s wealth dwarfs that of the working families whose interests she is promising to champion, as she did so in a speech in the Detroit area last Thursday, when she accused Trump of being interested in helping “only millionaires like himself.”
She gave most of her highly-paid speeches to major corporate interests that might well benefit from decisions made by her as the next President.
7
Yes indeed. Even the NYT editorial board urged her - once - to release those transcripts - but now all we hear is repeated urgings for Trump to release his income tax returns - including from HRC, and nobody cares to bring up those $250K / hour speeches and what they promised.
3
@David L. I couldn't possibly care any less than I do about what she said in those speeches. Seriously: not one whit.
1
Democrats have nothing without the truth on their side; this goes for the nation as well. It is the difference between Trump University and any public college or university. Everyone knows honesty is the best policy but it is also the best investment in growth for it is necessary in order to build anything of lasting value.
Overturning Citizens United, as Mrs. Clinton said she intends to do, will help to restore integrity.
If it is true that promoting democracy abroad is in our national interest and I believe it is then we can’t succeed if we’re losing it at home. Our military cannot be a substitute for leading by example. Our foreign policy will never convey the meaning of democracy better than our domestic policies, to believe otherwise is to fool no one but ourselves and at great cost.
Mrs. Clinton has the opportunity to restore growth to America by helping to restore America’s faith in its own democracy. If she commits to this path it will take courage to go the distance but at least with honesty hopes are based in reality.
Overturning Citizens United, as Mrs. Clinton said she intends to do, will help to restore integrity.
If it is true that promoting democracy abroad is in our national interest and I believe it is then we can’t succeed if we’re losing it at home. Our military cannot be a substitute for leading by example. Our foreign policy will never convey the meaning of democracy better than our domestic policies, to believe otherwise is to fool no one but ourselves and at great cost.
Mrs. Clinton has the opportunity to restore growth to America by helping to restore America’s faith in its own democracy. If she commits to this path it will take courage to go the distance but at least with honesty hopes are based in reality.
4
No president can overturn a Supreme Court decision. All she can do is fill vacancies and hope that a case comes along...
2
She supports overturning it.
Would be nice to know what Judge Merrick Garland thinks of Citizens United since he's the favorite. And if overturning Citizens United depends on voters coming out to make their preference known to Congress then Democrats should be getting that message across.
Would be nice to know what Judge Merrick Garland thinks of Citizens United since he's the favorite. And if overturning Citizens United depends on voters coming out to make their preference known to Congress then Democrats should be getting that message across.
1
Krugman's note on questions of "distribution and fairness" is where attention and commitment are needed. We surely will never have a flourishing economy and at least some political peace as long as we have so many working poor in the workforce.
In a speech by the late Walter Reuther of UAW fame that I heard in my second year of college in the 1950s, he noted that for the economy (capitalism) to work well, workers must make a lot of money and spend a lot of money. We will not have workers making lots of money without labor unions, good education and technical training, and a focus on a minimum wage instead of a living wage.
In a speech by the late Walter Reuther of UAW fame that I heard in my second year of college in the 1950s, he noted that for the economy (capitalism) to work well, workers must make a lot of money and spend a lot of money. We will not have workers making lots of money without labor unions, good education and technical training, and a focus on a minimum wage instead of a living wage.
6
Dr. Krugman makes passing reference to one of the most significant factors driving this slow-growth economy: the retiring baby boom generation. From our earliest years, we drove construction of housing, schools and shopping centers. Then we began careers and spent money. We made more money--not all of us, of course--and spent it. Now we are retiring in huge numbers. We no longer spend the kind of money we once did.
3
I like how Krugman and others acknowledge that Clinton is somewhat left of center in American politics. We should stop calling politicians like Rubio and Cruz "conservatives" and Clinton "progressives" or "liberals" when what they are are reactionaries and conservatives. Rubio and Cruz want to reverse the political, economic and social evolution of the mid-20th century while Clinton wishes to make slow, incremental changes while conserving that time periods' status quo. Cruz and the like want to conserve nothing but instead tear it all down in order to take us back to the 19th century where the white owners of property ruled the land and the working and middle classes, not to mention Blacks, Asians and Latinos of all classes, knew their place.
2
Although the U.S. has the worst child poverty among wealthy democracies, redistribution is a bad word among Americans except for the relentless market redistribution from the poor to the rich thanks to the rigging of the game.
When you have a million and a half homeless children your society is unjust, immoral and destined to chronic economic weakness.
What the U.S. needs is $500 billion of new taxes on the upper quartile with direct redistribution to the bottom 75 per cent through child and family and unemployment benefits, and refundable tax credits.
When you have a million and a half homeless children your society is unjust, immoral and destined to chronic economic weakness.
What the U.S. needs is $500 billion of new taxes on the upper quartile with direct redistribution to the bottom 75 per cent through child and family and unemployment benefits, and refundable tax credits.
7
Do professional economists count potential GDP growth in the past more than actual GDP growth in the past?
The US population growth rate is around 0.8% annually, and the world's rate is 1.13%. Why do we need to have an economic growth rate that exceeds our population? Why do we need to rake in the ecology, put it through our Industrial Revolution Machinery, churn out the economy and the chuck out the waste all over the earth any faster than we have babies?
The bosses of the political economy will always take as much wealth creation they can get their hands on and we the masses will always get the crumbs of what's left or get trickled on, no matter how big "the pie" is increased. We need to slice up the pie we have, we need to be more frugal with our natural resources: it is fatuous and gluttonous to just go get another pie when we should be more careful with the one we have.
The bosses of the political economy will always take as much wealth creation they can get their hands on and we the masses will always get the crumbs of what's left or get trickled on, no matter how big "the pie" is increased. We need to slice up the pie we have, we need to be more frugal with our natural resources: it is fatuous and gluttonous to just go get another pie when we should be more careful with the one we have.
5
I believe that there is still room for growth. We have tremendous upside potential in energy technologies, and in technolgies that address environmental and medical challenges. Unfortunately, there are many dinosaur corporations in the U.S. that hoard profits, and shy away from investing in next generation technologies and innovations. What's needed are incentives that would give them the courage to innovate, create, and expand. The government should be faulted for handing out far too many giveaways to companies that ship production overseas, park profits overseas, and kill competition by lobbying for subsidies and regulations to help keep them viable.
2
Building hospitals and schools is frequently included in the list of infrastructure projects proposed to put money in the hands of people who will spend it. But individuals who include these two items seem to have forgotten that hospitals and schools are for the most part being privatized in locales where they have not been privatized already.
In fact, a key element of the neoliberal agenda is to outsource government services if not privatize them altogether. The excuse is usually "efficiency," which boils down to lower quality and less service at a higher price to the people who actually use it; high-end taxpayers pay less tax, of course, which in the world of Republican legislators is the perennial holy grail.
Schools and hospitals are only the tip of the privatization iceberg. Slashing government spending, justified by voodoo economic reasoning and nonstop demonization of public sector workers, is the exact opposite policy necessary to increase GDP. Someone besides myself is going to have to tell the bozozs who make policy in the USA that padding corporate CEO's portfolios with public money is not how you "create jobs" as I am not in the position to bribe them to listen to me.
In fact, a key element of the neoliberal agenda is to outsource government services if not privatize them altogether. The excuse is usually "efficiency," which boils down to lower quality and less service at a higher price to the people who actually use it; high-end taxpayers pay less tax, of course, which in the world of Republican legislators is the perennial holy grail.
Schools and hospitals are only the tip of the privatization iceberg. Slashing government spending, justified by voodoo economic reasoning and nonstop demonization of public sector workers, is the exact opposite policy necessary to increase GDP. Someone besides myself is going to have to tell the bozozs who make policy in the USA that padding corporate CEO's portfolios with public money is not how you "create jobs" as I am not in the position to bribe them to listen to me.
9
The focus on Growth is exactly what the planet cannot afford if it is serious about reversing the human-caused factors that are driving climate change. The growth in world population - US population doubled in just a few short decades - that seems to be necessary to fuel corporate bottom lines relentless multiplies the need to exploit natural resources and inevitably fills the planet with toxicity of civilization's byproducts. "Eco-Tourism" is but one ludicrous example of how hordes of humans exploiting the few remaining pristine spots on the globe is "re-branded" as a good thing that 'creates jobs'. What we need is a candidate who can articulate a viable economy model that will not eventually kill off the entire species. Until then, the best economic plan is extensive investment in condom infrastructure.
3
Goethe's prayer not Niebuhr?
It took the USA 240 years to accumulate $9.5T in debt. Obama doubled it to $19T during his 8 years. In terms of stimulus, he spent $300K +/- per "job created." Economies always recover on their own. And stimulus is supposed to hyper-accelerate that recovery. But Obama wasted that money on various means to assure his re-election in 2012 and to try to win in 2016. But then we'll have to pay this all back. It's like a guy who borrows on his house and starts a restaurant that fails. There were some jobs briefly and some business for a while. But now the house is lost.
2
Agreed. It will be another 4 years of stagnant economic growth. She won't want to offend anyone, by spending heavily to fix our neglected, third world infrastructure. She'll just want to dole out more money to keep people voting for her and doing what they're doing. That's why she'll be a one termer. That's also why some swing voters (not me) are voting for the Apprentice President.
1
Bernie Sanders didn't get it and is why he lost. He honestly believed a couple of generations drowning in Student Loan Debt backed up by Gun Owners were going to be enough to defeat a seasoned pro like Hillary Clinton, a candidate grounded in 'practical thinking' and not the 'magical thinking' Sanders spouted at his rallies. I said it a thousand times in my Comments over the past year, "Most of these Millennials didn't know Bernie Sanders from Colonel Sanders when the primaries began........." Well, when all was said and done, the adults in the room had the last say. Hillary won 14 of the last 20 contests and California indeed was terrific icing on the cake. This needed 'Measured Thinking' is what I believe Mr. Krugman speaks of here. And it will insure Hillary, Madam President mind you, will hit the ground running as she takes the reins from President Obama in her quest to pick up where he left off. They're waiting, I know, that Republican cabal of Trey Gowdy and Company, and they're most likely already knee deep in plans to set up an impeachment hearing-if it's not the server, it will be Benghazi or whatever. So, all we can hope for is a Landslide Victory that gives us Democrats back the Congress. So, please, lets not forget how important the down-ticket races are. Senator Mitch McConnell would love to gather the Republican Congress together like he did eight years ago, and tell it, "From this day forward, we vote "no" to everything President Hillary Clinton proposes."
2
Want to accelerate growth? Wipe out debt.
Why does only Wall Street get relief?
FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) has a strangle hold on our economy and it will continue to stagnant unless it is reined in. Sorry, won't happen under Clinton II.
LFP has declined because there are not enough jobs. People give up. Mysterious? Please.
Why does only Wall Street get relief?
FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) has a strangle hold on our economy and it will continue to stagnant unless it is reined in. Sorry, won't happen under Clinton II.
LFP has declined because there are not enough jobs. People give up. Mysterious? Please.
1
Maybe, just maybe, we can another President who runs the country for all of us , and not just the 0.01%.
Paul, you say courage, I say clueless. You save brave, I say stick-your-head-in-the-sand.
You say policy honesty, I say $20 Trillion debt, $400 Billion debt service, $500 Billion trade deficit, $500 Billion budget deficit, $1.25 Trillion student debt, and massive structural under-employment.
You say hog wash, those numbers don't mean anything. I say the political establishment in this country, ie the Democratic and Republican Parties and their sycophantic camp followers, are incapable of Policy Honesty. It won't address our serious structural problems because the only solutions it has is 'let's do more of the same'. It also would have to accept accountability for its failed policies.
Your man Keynes once said " economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they only tell us that when the storm is long past the sea is flat again."
The season is tempestuous, and you offer us Niebuhr.
You say policy honesty, I say $20 Trillion debt, $400 Billion debt service, $500 Billion trade deficit, $500 Billion budget deficit, $1.25 Trillion student debt, and massive structural under-employment.
You say hog wash, those numbers don't mean anything. I say the political establishment in this country, ie the Democratic and Republican Parties and their sycophantic camp followers, are incapable of Policy Honesty. It won't address our serious structural problems because the only solutions it has is 'let's do more of the same'. It also would have to accept accountability for its failed policies.
Your man Keynes once said " economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they only tell us that when the storm is long past the sea is flat again."
The season is tempestuous, and you offer us Niebuhr.
1
When we talk of growth , we need to also ask the question growth for who ? Also it my be better to ask what about the health and well being of all citizens , in other words measure our economy in terms of how healthy and happy we our, how well are our children educated.The availability of health care . How effectively and efficiently does our economy deliver those things, not just how high is the stock market , How much is GE or Facebook doing ,etc, etc,
2
I don't have a problem with wealthy people paying higher taxes, and neither should the rest of us non-wealthy people. So how is it that our representatives -- D and R alike -- don't take care of that little detail for us?
5
“Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
How about Krugman’s Prayer:
Grant me the serenity that comes from my having enough money to weather a Clinton Presidency without impoverishing me like my neighbors, the courage to withstand all the justified criticism there is of me, and the amnesia to forget that I lied in support of HRC over Bernie Sanders and helped subject my fellow Americans to a choice between a crook and a Nazi.
How about Krugman’s Prayer:
Grant me the serenity that comes from my having enough money to weather a Clinton Presidency without impoverishing me like my neighbors, the courage to withstand all the justified criticism there is of me, and the amnesia to forget that I lied in support of HRC over Bernie Sanders and helped subject my fellow Americans to a choice between a crook and a Nazi.
1
One of our biggest failures in the last 20 years is our commitment and investment in education. We have let manufacturing slip away because the job creators and their political shills have seen fit to move overseas to increase profits. The stock market with its sole goal of return on investment and not the health of the economy, nearly sunk us in 2008.
Do we really think we can continue to compete if we have an uneducated workforce coming up? Every time any state government needs more money because they've dropped tax rates and suddenly realize they can't pay for basic services, they take money out of the educational sector with promises to make it up, then find a reason not to. Private schools are great for those who can afford them, but our public schools need support so we can produce a workforce able to compete with the rest of the world. Grant us the wisdom indeed to make our politicians see that if we continue the present course we will elect a man who "...loves the uneducated".
Do we really think we can continue to compete if we have an uneducated workforce coming up? Every time any state government needs more money because they've dropped tax rates and suddenly realize they can't pay for basic services, they take money out of the educational sector with promises to make it up, then find a reason not to. Private schools are great for those who can afford them, but our public schools need support so we can produce a workforce able to compete with the rest of the world. Grant us the wisdom indeed to make our politicians see that if we continue the present course we will elect a man who "...loves the uneducated".
2
Our kids are too busy playing sports. From kindergarten to middle school they learn to play, then suddenly in high school they are required to "learn to study". Elementary school parents scream, too much home work, my child's childhood is slipping away so fast! Meanwhile, in poor countries in Africa and Asia, children walk barefoot, for miles to the nearest school, just so they can get an education. Being educated brings pride to the whole village, going to college is like all prayers being answered. Meanwhile here in America, people take public school for granted, towns and states keep cutting off budget, shutting down programs, teachers continue to receive lower pay than other professions...meanwhile colleges keep hiking their tuitions. Something is not just right, and Hillary ain't gonna fix it, neither can Trump.
4
This reminds me of that famous incident where a comics page editor switched the captions between a Far Side and a Dennis the Menace cartoon. Take away the vaguely negative connotations of the phrase about "deficit obsession" and this could almost pass for one of David Brooks' VSP mail-ins.
At no point since the mid-90's has Hillary ever evinced less deficit hawkery than anybody, from Alesina to Zandi, even when it might have helped her to do so. Anybody who missed this has the same delusions as Trump supporters who say "what he really means is …"
At no point since the mid-90's has Hillary ever evinced less deficit hawkery than anybody, from Alesina to Zandi, even when it might have helped her to do so. Anybody who missed this has the same delusions as Trump supporters who say "what he really means is …"
Economic policies in a liberal vs. conservative context are just one example of the general divergence in Republican vs, Democratic campaign philosophies.
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, believe in promising anything they think will induce people to vote for them. Actually delivering on promises is not a concern to them.
Democrats on the other hand are actually concerned with delivering on their promises, and are guided by the Colbert constraint: "Reality has a liberal bias".
Republicans, including Mr. Trump, believe in promising anything they think will induce people to vote for them. Actually delivering on promises is not a concern to them.
Democrats on the other hand are actually concerned with delivering on their promises, and are guided by the Colbert constraint: "Reality has a liberal bias".
2
According to the budget office, potential growth was pretty stable from 1970 to 2000, with nothing either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton did making much obvious difference....
-- Paul Krugman
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=6AM4
January 30, 2016
Real Potential Gross Domestic Product and Real Gross Domestic Product, 1970-2016
(Percent change)
-- Paul Krugman
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=6AM4
January 30, 2016
Real Potential Gross Domestic Product and Real Gross Domestic Product, 1970-2016
(Percent change)
1
Mysterious decline in labor force participation? One only needs to look at the explosion in the SS disability rolls to figure out that a large swath of the country are finding disability payments ($13,000 per year) plus Medicare eligibility is a better deal than minimum wage with no health benefits. And once they get on the rolls, statistics show only 1% ever get off.
2
Of course we police that, don't we?
3
One question I've always had in these debates - if it were actually true that cutting taxes leads to higher government revenues, why would anyone be against it? Politicians love nothing more than giving people something for nothing.
2
That train left the station long ago.
Simple answer: it doesn't, it leads to disaster.
Simple answer: it doesn't, it leads to disaster.
4
One major element that is missing from the bottom line of the economy, is waste. Anyone who runs a household budget knows how much waste eats at your bottom line. Government waste counts for a lot at the end of the day. I know people who work for the city, who are so unrealistic about what it is to work in the private sector. They enjoy nice salaries, and the cushiest benefits, including pensions, all paid for the taxpayers who don't get nearly as much as they do. The reason there is no money for repairing and rebuilding infrastructure is that so much is going to employee salaries and benefits. Cities are going bankrupt trying to meet pension obligations. A police officer works 20 years and walks away with a pension equal to half of their final years pay, typically padded with overtime, another huge budget killer. The average pension for an NYPD officer is about $60k a year. With people living longer 60K a year amounts to nearly 2 mill in 30 years. Now factor a growing police force of about 40k and we have a financial meltdown brewing.
And many retire well before the age of 50, move to places where their pension goes further, so in effect NYC tax payers are adding income to other states bottom line for nothing in return. And this is just one example.
Any conversation about improving the economy that does not deal with the waste is a non-starter.
And many retire well before the age of 50, move to places where their pension goes further, so in effect NYC tax payers are adding income to other states bottom line for nothing in return. And this is just one example.
Any conversation about improving the economy that does not deal with the waste is a non-starter.
2
You fail to make a distinction between some government employees and others. Many are hardworking and underfunded, public school teachers, for example. Police are a special case; not all of them fit your description either.
The continuous stripping of public services does not do well for all of us. You're right, it would be nice if the "don't spoil the job" corruption could be removed, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater doesn't work.
In the main, public employees work for less than privatized ones do, and are less corrupt. Selling off our prisons, for example, has been a disaster. Some things are best done for the common good, not for private profit.
Private profit is not a god, all seeing and all wise.
The continuous stripping of public services does not do well for all of us. You're right, it would be nice if the "don't spoil the job" corruption could be removed, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater doesn't work.
In the main, public employees work for less than privatized ones do, and are less corrupt. Selling off our prisons, for example, has been a disaster. Some things are best done for the common good, not for private profit.
Private profit is not a god, all seeing and all wise.
4
Not too long ago both private and public sector employees could earn a better than livable wage with good benefits and a pension. Over the last 6 decades the private sector has taken most of those jobs to pay for extravagant CEO salaries and larger profits for shareholders. So when the private sector worker looks across the divide at the public sector employee, instead of demanding the reduction of that worker's pay and benefits, they should demand those things that were taken from the private sector in the name of greed and profits.
3
Thanks for commenting on this. It's true not just in NY but nearly everywhere. My friends retired as federal employees and schoolteachers are very wealthy as retirees. Lucky them. But, they are sure not willing to see the problems created by these juicy bennies. I hear continually about how hard they have worked. As if the guy cutting their grass in 95 degree weather isn't working hard. Will we ever wise up? Not in my lifetime.
2
But We all know any more When Republicans says how to revive economy or America will be great again.
Their goal is Make Corporate America earns high profit, that si all. Then trickle down voodoo convince remaining masses.
Everything else is detail.
But we saw Corporate America's highs since 1980's and we are here.
I believe we shouldn't be demotivate our selves with long term growth issue, Never forget what is world economies long term expectation at this moment.
We must invest America's infrastructure, This extremely low loan environment is not going to stay decades, but this is a hiatus for us, we must borrow this money to bring our any more so called 20century infrastructure to 21st century level, and wait next wave of world economical growth. If we don't improve our selves and when world economy will start to move again in decade or so, we will be very disadvantageous to the rest of the world.
Their goal is Make Corporate America earns high profit, that si all. Then trickle down voodoo convince remaining masses.
Everything else is detail.
But we saw Corporate America's highs since 1980's and we are here.
I believe we shouldn't be demotivate our selves with long term growth issue, Never forget what is world economies long term expectation at this moment.
We must invest America's infrastructure, This extremely low loan environment is not going to stay decades, but this is a hiatus for us, we must borrow this money to bring our any more so called 20century infrastructure to 21st century level, and wait next wave of world economical growth. If we don't improve our selves and when world economy will start to move again in decade or so, we will be very disadvantageous to the rest of the world.
1
Clinton is infinitely superior to her challenger, but her cautious incrementalism is insufficient to accelerate long-term economic growth. Krugman is correct that now is the time to borrow for investments in infrastructure repair and replacement, to which I would add investment in scientific R&D, public education and home health care for the elderly.
Bernie Sanders' economic vision was more congruent to Krugman's and I am delighted that Krugman supported him vigorously... Oh, wait.
On the matter of "mysteriously declining" labor force participation among prime age adults: Not so mysterious from where I sit. The decline reflects growing automation and globalization and, for workers aged 50 , age discrimination.
Bernie Sanders' economic vision was more congruent to Krugman's and I am delighted that Krugman supported him vigorously... Oh, wait.
On the matter of "mysteriously declining" labor force participation among prime age adults: Not so mysterious from where I sit. The decline reflects growing automation and globalization and, for workers aged 50 , age discrimination.
The socialist wing of the Democratic Party has a lot in common with the Trump crowd. Each would build a wall around the United States. Trump's wall would be to keep foreigners out, while the socialists' wall would be to keep foreign goods out. Either would lead to disaster.
The socialists' intentions, to bring back American jobs through renewed manufacturing, seem good. But the import wall would have two major problems: A worldwide depression that would likely set the stage for WWIII, as well as filling America's countryside with hundreds of new, fully automated factories, each with only a handful of employees.
The socialists' intentions, to bring back American jobs through renewed manufacturing, seem good. But the import wall would have two major problems: A worldwide depression that would likely set the stage for WWIII, as well as filling America's countryside with hundreds of new, fully automated factories, each with only a handful of employees.
1
"None of Donald Trump’s actual rivals for the nomination bore any resemblance to their imaginary candidate, a sensible, moderate conservative with good ideas." This is true; there were no moderate conservatives in the GOP field. But John Kasich, despite his social extremism on certain issues (anti-same-sex marriage, etc.) came about as close to "moderation," as one might imagine among the contemporary national GOP, and I think had he gained the nomination he'd be giving Clinton a closer challenge than we're seeing with Trump. Whether Kasich could have defeated Clinton is another issue, but it would be a very difference race from the political reality (freak) show we're witnessing right now.
The point you make in your final paragraph, that a politician should level with the country and say that to bring the things that *most* Americans say they want in most polls, that they crave, we might have to have higher taxes on the rich, is just not going to fly in our current political environment. Look at the hit the Democrats suffered in 1994 after Bill Clinton and the Dem Congress raised taxes--and eventually presided over 22+ million NEW jobs! The anti-tax forces will kick into gear, destroy the Dems and reasonable Republicans, and we'll be back to George W. Bush-land again.
PS: Why is Ivanka Trump palling around Croatia right now with Vladimir Putin's current girlfriend, Wendy Deng Murdoch? Talk about sketchy behavior....
The point you make in your final paragraph, that a politician should level with the country and say that to bring the things that *most* Americans say they want in most polls, that they crave, we might have to have higher taxes on the rich, is just not going to fly in our current political environment. Look at the hit the Democrats suffered in 1994 after Bill Clinton and the Dem Congress raised taxes--and eventually presided over 22+ million NEW jobs! The anti-tax forces will kick into gear, destroy the Dems and reasonable Republicans, and we'll be back to George W. Bush-land again.
PS: Why is Ivanka Trump palling around Croatia right now with Vladimir Putin's current girlfriend, Wendy Deng Murdoch? Talk about sketchy behavior....
3
Extrapolating from what I see happening at my own employer--where I have worked in a professional and mid-high level capacity for 35 years--I wonder if a significant part of the problem is the continued effort to make information technology the answer to everything. We've come a long way from Amazon, Paypal and eBay, all of which lubricated and sped up the wheels of commerce, now to Twitter and Snapchat, which speed the wheels of chatter, and Uber and Airbnb both of which seemed like promising tools to reduce underutilization of assets but which instead have merely cannibalized them.
At my employer earlier impressive advances in information storage, access and sorting have been followed by ham-handed attempts at paperless operations that have actually reduced employees' access to information, forcing them to compensate by cutting back on thoroughness. The result is unquestionably lower productivity, including lower quality of productivity.
Perhaps the proverbial mouse has been pressing that IT lever a little too long, desperately hoping for that still-remembered but now elusive bit of cheese. We need to be doing something else.
At my employer earlier impressive advances in information storage, access and sorting have been followed by ham-handed attempts at paperless operations that have actually reduced employees' access to information, forcing them to compensate by cutting back on thoroughness. The result is unquestionably lower productivity, including lower quality of productivity.
Perhaps the proverbial mouse has been pressing that IT lever a little too long, desperately hoping for that still-remembered but now elusive bit of cheese. We need to be doing something else.
1
One exception to the coherence of Sec. Clinton's platform is her rhetoric about financing higher education.
Regarding the growth rate of potential output in the U.S., I wonder if we have our goals clear. Is GDP growth needed because we can't provide for our needs in the aggregate? Or have we focussed on it for purposes of income distribution? My sense is that it's the latter.
GDP growth prospects drive investment, which is the volatile part of demand and thus the part that determines involuntary unemployment, which hits mainly lower-income families.
For the long term, however, it might be a wiser strategy to stabilize family incomes at the low end through social policy and structural economic reforms that effect distribution, rather than to always push for GDP growth at rates that may not be sustainable.
Regarding the growth rate of potential output in the U.S., I wonder if we have our goals clear. Is GDP growth needed because we can't provide for our needs in the aggregate? Or have we focussed on it for purposes of income distribution? My sense is that it's the latter.
GDP growth prospects drive investment, which is the volatile part of demand and thus the part that determines involuntary unemployment, which hits mainly lower-income families.
For the long term, however, it might be a wiser strategy to stabilize family incomes at the low end through social policy and structural economic reforms that effect distribution, rather than to always push for GDP growth at rates that may not be sustainable.
1
After reading this column Paul, for the life of me I can't fathom why you supported Hillary and denigrated Bernie. His is the vision you want - in fact, his is the vision the old Paul Krugman himself called for!
Yes, we need courage to change the things we can: undo the supply-side policies - that includes bad trade deals that enabled the 1% and Wall Street and multinationals to wildly succeed, while punishing the 99% - that have sucked the lifeblood out of our consumer-driven economy. Why are so many "experts" mystified that our economy and the global economy continue to flounder? When consumers have been robbed of their wealth, how can they spend it to drive up demand? In short, we have way more SUPPLY than we need. What we're in dire shortage of is the means to satisfy DEMAND, i.e. plentiful jobs that pay a living wage. Until our economy is returned to balance by enabling the consumers - a.k.a. workers - to share in the prosperity, and thereby have the means to increase demand, the system will remain as out of control as any drunk or addict.
But you know this Paul. What you haven't admitted - as any sincere person in recovery would - is the nature of your wrong: you stumped for a person who still believes in supply side, despite her promises to "tweak" it. While you've missed your best chance at seeing your old vision implemented, it's never too late to "sober up". Put the "cork in the bottle" of Hillary Swill, and follow the steps to true recovery: rigorous honesty.
Yes, we need courage to change the things we can: undo the supply-side policies - that includes bad trade deals that enabled the 1% and Wall Street and multinationals to wildly succeed, while punishing the 99% - that have sucked the lifeblood out of our consumer-driven economy. Why are so many "experts" mystified that our economy and the global economy continue to flounder? When consumers have been robbed of their wealth, how can they spend it to drive up demand? In short, we have way more SUPPLY than we need. What we're in dire shortage of is the means to satisfy DEMAND, i.e. plentiful jobs that pay a living wage. Until our economy is returned to balance by enabling the consumers - a.k.a. workers - to share in the prosperity, and thereby have the means to increase demand, the system will remain as out of control as any drunk or addict.
But you know this Paul. What you haven't admitted - as any sincere person in recovery would - is the nature of your wrong: you stumped for a person who still believes in supply side, despite her promises to "tweak" it. While you've missed your best chance at seeing your old vision implemented, it's never too late to "sober up". Put the "cork in the bottle" of Hillary Swill, and follow the steps to true recovery: rigorous honesty.
6
Because Paul has been a fan of the Clintons and will ever serve them so.
2
The conservative delusion is that everything that was is as it should be evermore.
That's why, in their minds, dinosaurs lived along side of humans, and both evolution, and man-made global warming could never happen. That's why one needs a gun to protect oneself against unseen enemies, and it would make perfect sense for the second Amendment to cover 'pocket sized', personal nuclear weapons when they become available (particularly if they were shaped like a gun). Neighbors of another ilk, aka "others", are natural enemies and prey.
Nonsense makes sense when self and tribe (aka survival of the fittest at any cost) is all that matters.
That's why, in their minds, dinosaurs lived along side of humans, and both evolution, and man-made global warming could never happen. That's why one needs a gun to protect oneself against unseen enemies, and it would make perfect sense for the second Amendment to cover 'pocket sized', personal nuclear weapons when they become available (particularly if they were shaped like a gun). Neighbors of another ilk, aka "others", are natural enemies and prey.
Nonsense makes sense when self and tribe (aka survival of the fittest at any cost) is all that matters.
2
Seems a far stretch to call Mrs. Clinton's economic agenda a center-left one. Center-right is far more the case, and if one looks at well-known Republicans who have announced their support for her, the case is made.
This was not to have been the cautious year. The public is (or at least was, given the huge popularity of Bernie) eager, impatient, for change.
Mrs. Clinton does not represent change. And she herself has wrapped herself in the mantle of President Obama to prove it
This was not to have been the cautious year. The public is (or at least was, given the huge popularity of Bernie) eager, impatient, for change.
Mrs. Clinton does not represent change. And she herself has wrapped herself in the mantle of President Obama to prove it
5
For those who believe Hillary is by far the superior candidate compared with Trump (nobody's perfect, including Obama, Sanders, Warren, Stein, Johnson, etc.), here's a documented summary of the reasons to support her to share with the coalition of the sane (read by 10,950 so far): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
1
The low labor participation rate is no mystery. Americans need an incentive to work, low wages and no benefits ain't cuttin' it.
When work doesn't pay, it doesn't pay to work.
Same thing with productivity. It's down because workers have figured it out.
They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.
When work doesn't pay, it doesn't pay to work.
Same thing with productivity. It's down because workers have figured it out.
They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.
9
Why would anyone work when they can get even more while on welfare or disability and then get an under the table cash only job as well?
2
Under the table cash job/welfare? Wow, I thought for a moment you were talking about the trillions of dollars in bailouts, subsidies, tax cuts and offshore tax havens provided to corporations and the rich where one could really describe this handout to them as nothing less than CORPORATE WELFARE, of course, just on another considerably larger scale.
Dr. Krugman,
Read your column with some interest, particularly the underlying problem of declining potential GDP growth and its importance. Should the situation continue, in the limit the US becomes like a European country, slow growing and a good deal for those who are already OK. I was disappointed that your only suggested fix is to build infrastructure and that you did not explain that such an investment works by decreasing the marginal cost of transportation; and increasing subsequent business activity. Wouldn't increasing the funding for R&D and technology commercialization, areas where the US now sorely lags behind places such as China, have the same impact; perhaps permitting whole new business areas to blossom.
Read your column with some interest, particularly the underlying problem of declining potential GDP growth and its importance. Should the situation continue, in the limit the US becomes like a European country, slow growing and a good deal for those who are already OK. I was disappointed that your only suggested fix is to build infrastructure and that you did not explain that such an investment works by decreasing the marginal cost of transportation; and increasing subsequent business activity. Wouldn't increasing the funding for R&D and technology commercialization, areas where the US now sorely lags behind places such as China, have the same impact; perhaps permitting whole new business areas to blossom.
1
At last, someone gives Secretary Clinton the credit due her for her clear-eyed approach to economic and fiscal policy—which is matched in her proposals for just about every other policy domain. In that regard, it is striking that Krugman should allude to Reinhold Niebuhr in the column. Niebuhr's realism about the human condition and prospect, best explained relative to American life in his classic, "The Irony of American History," clearly informs Secretary Clinton's approach to governing as much as it does our current president's views, if not more so. And the "more so" in her case lies mostly in her focus on implementing the vision over elevating the rhetoric that describes it. While Obama's rhetoric has been welcome and inspiring (and he is to be credited greatly for trying to implement the vision in spite of the irrational opposition to him that proved Niebuhr's assessment of human limitation true time and again), it may be the case that a greater focus on implementing, even through compromise, is truer to Niebuhr and the limitations of human capacities that he so clearly understood.
3
Or alternately: keep the poor, poor so the rest of us can be secure.
2
Mr. Krugman, when you refer to "a somewhat mysterious decline in labor force participation among prime-age adults," that's when I really start to worry. You're supposed to be explaining the mystery to us, right? Isn't real long-term economic growth going to be dependent on creating jobs that prime age adults can and will take on?
2
I see a lot of young people-- men and women-- walking around in crummy clothing, sporting excessive tats and piercings. They do not look clean. They are not promising future employees. Much less employers. Many of this generation has simply checked out. They get by-- on a gig here and there, food stamps, assistance from family, living in large groups, etc. Much of this is a choice. I do not think any president can get this "prime-age" group into system participation.
11
I am afraid in much of the business world, it has turned in to kind of a two-way street. When corporations nowadays do not have that much commitment to their employees anymore, the employees are no longer going to be that committed to their employer.
4
karen, those who are lucky enough to be employed by companies like google or facebook, literally live in communes, they live and breathe in office space, they are fed on campus and they can dress and smell anyway they want.
Dear Professor Krugman,
You argue that Mrs. Clinton's economic plan is "very much a center-left vision: incremental but fairly large increases in high-income tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety net."
You then use the Tax Policy Center to back up your claim. Not everyone share's your enthusiasm:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillary-clintons-economic-p...
The only thing "modest" about Hillary's plan to increase both taxes and spending, Paul, is that neither are as high as you'd like.
Hillary's plan also calls for an "exit tax" on businesses that relocate jobs overseas. She also claims that this tax will be used to create new jobs here - would you mind explaining that one, Professor Krugman?
Here's something that politicians of all stripes fail to grasp: private sector jobs don't belong to any country. Those jobs belong to the employer, period. It is the employer who is responsible for keeping the business viable. Government tends to get in the way of that. For an example of what one famous Democrat found out when he opened a business, read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/06/14/how-to-create-jobs-by-...
You argue that Mrs. Clinton's economic plan is "very much a center-left vision: incremental but fairly large increases in high-income tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety net."
You then use the Tax Policy Center to back up your claim. Not everyone share's your enthusiasm:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillary-clintons-economic-p...
The only thing "modest" about Hillary's plan to increase both taxes and spending, Paul, is that neither are as high as you'd like.
Hillary's plan also calls for an "exit tax" on businesses that relocate jobs overseas. She also claims that this tax will be used to create new jobs here - would you mind explaining that one, Professor Krugman?
Here's something that politicians of all stripes fail to grasp: private sector jobs don't belong to any country. Those jobs belong to the employer, period. It is the employer who is responsible for keeping the business viable. Government tends to get in the way of that. For an example of what one famous Democrat found out when he opened a business, read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/06/14/how-to-create-jobs-by-...
1
When people like the Waltons make the multi-billionaire index and their employees need public assistance to get by, it's hard not to think it's not about fairness but about looting and greed.
Whole markets are creating the skim off the excess wealth buying things that have very little value outside of fashion. A lot of high-end art, for example, is just ridiculously prices junk.
I know there's a huge gap between the Walmart Waltons and regular businesses, let alone the hardworking proprietors of small businesses, but continuously cutting taxes and regulations while ramping up incentives for hoarding and looting isn't helping.
When that obscene wealth is used to skew elections, per Rove and the Koch billionaire network, and an activist Supreme Court enables them, we are in trouble.
I don't even think it's that much of a stretch to notice that wealthy business owners have not been hiring during the Obama administration while their income increases and working stiffs get less and less.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Whole markets are creating the skim off the excess wealth buying things that have very little value outside of fashion. A lot of high-end art, for example, is just ridiculously prices junk.
I know there's a huge gap between the Walmart Waltons and regular businesses, let alone the hardworking proprietors of small businesses, but continuously cutting taxes and regulations while ramping up incentives for hoarding and looting isn't helping.
When that obscene wealth is used to skew elections, per Rove and the Koch billionaire network, and an activist Supreme Court enables them, we are in trouble.
I don't even think it's that much of a stretch to notice that wealthy business owners have not been hiring during the Obama administration while their income increases and working stiffs get less and less.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2
From that link:"...I’ve also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life..."
"...it's hard not to think it's not about fairness but about looting and greed."
Who determines what is "fair"? Do you want government to do that? Can you tell me at what level of income you officially become "greedy"?
"A lot of high-end art, for example, is just ridiculously prices junk."
Here's the dirty little secret about free markets: no one forces you to buy anything. Government, by contrast, can (though they're not supposed to). If you doubt me, look no further than the Affordable Care Act.
"When that obscene wealth is used to skew elections..."
If that were true, Republicans would be winning every election.
"I don't even think it's that much of a stretch to notice that wealthy business owners have not been hiring during the Obama administration..."
According to acolytes like Socrates on this post, the economy has been booming under Obama. Economic growth has been very low since the recession, despite seven-and-a-half years of Obama. If you were a business owner, would you want government to force you to hire when you know it would hurt your business?
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
So true. That is more applicable to politicians. Hillary famously said that when she and Bill left the White House, they were "dead broke" and in debt. Today, her net worth is over $30 million, and Bill's is over $80 million. And she claims she's for the rest of us? Give me a break...
Who determines what is "fair"? Do you want government to do that? Can you tell me at what level of income you officially become "greedy"?
"A lot of high-end art, for example, is just ridiculously prices junk."
Here's the dirty little secret about free markets: no one forces you to buy anything. Government, by contrast, can (though they're not supposed to). If you doubt me, look no further than the Affordable Care Act.
"When that obscene wealth is used to skew elections..."
If that were true, Republicans would be winning every election.
"I don't even think it's that much of a stretch to notice that wealthy business owners have not been hiring during the Obama administration..."
According to acolytes like Socrates on this post, the economy has been booming under Obama. Economic growth has been very low since the recession, despite seven-and-a-half years of Obama. If you were a business owner, would you want government to force you to hire when you know it would hurt your business?
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
So true. That is more applicable to politicians. Hillary famously said that when she and Bill left the White House, they were "dead broke" and in debt. Today, her net worth is over $30 million, and Bill's is over $80 million. And she claims she's for the rest of us? Give me a break...
4
As Professor Krugman explains, it does seem quite clear that Clinton's economic proposals offer the basic, tried and proven, policies that any responsible leader should and does advocate under current circumstances.
However, criticism of Hillary Clinton's lack of "vision" seems particularly appropriate here. What sort of America and what sort of economy do we want to have fifty years from now?
I am convinced that the only way to keep America prosperous, democratic and morally sound is try to build an economy and society focused on science, technology and - above all - education for all Americans and masses of foreigners.
We know that better educated people are more productive and prosperous. We know that scientific and technological competitiveness depend almost entire upon human resources. We know that America's diversity makes our nation exceptionally good at getting various types of people to work together to learn, discover and invent.
"Out of the box thinking" is America's competitive advantage.
However, we will lose it if we continue to abandon quality public education, bar foreign talent and enthusiasm, allow our infrastructure to deteriorate, and encourage Americans to hate everyone they can target behind the crosshairs of bigotry.
Americans really can leap into a magnificent future - in less than two generations - if we stop quibbling over dividing the pie and instead focusing on baking the biggest pie we all can imagine.
However, criticism of Hillary Clinton's lack of "vision" seems particularly appropriate here. What sort of America and what sort of economy do we want to have fifty years from now?
I am convinced that the only way to keep America prosperous, democratic and morally sound is try to build an economy and society focused on science, technology and - above all - education for all Americans and masses of foreigners.
We know that better educated people are more productive and prosperous. We know that scientific and technological competitiveness depend almost entire upon human resources. We know that America's diversity makes our nation exceptionally good at getting various types of people to work together to learn, discover and invent.
"Out of the box thinking" is America's competitive advantage.
However, we will lose it if we continue to abandon quality public education, bar foreign talent and enthusiasm, allow our infrastructure to deteriorate, and encourage Americans to hate everyone they can target behind the crosshairs of bigotry.
Americans really can leap into a magnificent future - in less than two generations - if we stop quibbling over dividing the pie and instead focusing on baking the biggest pie we all can imagine.
2
The pie HAS been growing, the problem lies with the irrefutable fact that a small percentage has been taking a larger and larger portion of that pie leaving what is left of the rest to everyone else and THAT is ultimately what STILL has to change.
Out of the box thinking is irrelevant if the vast and shrinking majority of those that will best utilize that thinking , i.e. the middle class, is finding themselves in less and less of a position of being able to take advantage of it.
Out of the box thinking is irrelevant if the vast and shrinking majority of those that will best utilize that thinking , i.e. the middle class, is finding themselves in less and less of a position of being able to take advantage of it.
2
I don't agree that it's honest and brave to insist that 'some of you will have to pay higher taxes' for the federal government to spend more money.
It would be true for state and local governments, but you're fond of reminding us that the federal government is not a household. It has a special power. It is the sovereign of a fiat currency. It can create and spend money. In fact, as anyone with a decent Economics bachelor's degree should be able to explain, it MUST create money to foster a healthy national economy.
What would be honest and brave is to explain to Americans that the federal gov't is a unique case.
If you want growth in the American economy, the federal gov't should simply put otherwise productive but idle Americans to work, paying them a living wage to do useful work. When and if this threatens to bid up the price of resources, the federal gov't can refuse to bid and those Americans can be shifted to private payrolls.
It would be true for state and local governments, but you're fond of reminding us that the federal government is not a household. It has a special power. It is the sovereign of a fiat currency. It can create and spend money. In fact, as anyone with a decent Economics bachelor's degree should be able to explain, it MUST create money to foster a healthy national economy.
What would be honest and brave is to explain to Americans that the federal gov't is a unique case.
If you want growth in the American economy, the federal gov't should simply put otherwise productive but idle Americans to work, paying them a living wage to do useful work. When and if this threatens to bid up the price of resources, the federal gov't can refuse to bid and those Americans can be shifted to private payrolls.
Personally, I think what this country needs is a good course in logic. Then we could have a rational discussion among ourselves about the more than ninety per cent of the federal budget that covers entitlements rather than constantly chewing on the less than 10 % of the budget that deals with infrastructuree of any strip.
Hillary can make changes to the federal government, but have little to no influence on the states. How many jobs did we lose there, something like 5 million. Worst case scenarios are Louisiana and Kansas. These states are going to become the next Alabama/Mississippi. It can't just be economic. Time for the federal government to do something that makes it easy to register and vote. I'm hoping for them to do mail in voting and provide the money to get it done. The second thing to do is make a framework eliminating all of the injustices of gerrymandering districts. SCOTUS knows it's wrong, just not sure how to make it right. Find the sweet spot.
1
America does not exist in a vacuum. An article in this paper about negative interest rates in Europe and how their continuation could affect the world economy make outrageous financial claims by conservative candidates all the more outrageous. But hey, let's face it. Contemporary GOP conservatives do not care about the economy in the manner in which they did when Daddy Bush lost his reelection bid. What the present GOP base prizes most is a product of the Karl Rove/Roger Ailes strategy of incorporating evangelical Christianity into the platform. Control of the social fabric of the nation is the primary concern. God will take care of the rest, liberals be damned.
2
I realize you are working with a limited amount of room in a column, but you left out a massive increase in funding for basic research. In the long term, new science, that leads to new technologies, that leads to whole new industries is the single biggest driver of growth.
4
Amen, brother Krugman.
Hillary may have presented a rational way to increase productivity and jobs, but how is she going to get it through the 'JUST SAY NO" Republican Congress? Senator McConnell (Dr. No) and Congressman Ryan are already sharpening their budget cutting knives as they did to President Obama, who proposed increasing infrastructure spending years ago. The Republicans should be held accountable for hurting the average working man and the economy.
2
The problem is even many establishment, corporately controlled, democrats in these districts will not do much to change the landscape either and they have to be removed as well. This is where one is finding more progressive democratic challengers starting to run against establishment democrats in congressional primaries, one in a particular district of note in Florida, with the failed DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schulz, whom for the first time is being seriously challenged by a progressive candidate who has been funded along the same lines as how Bernie Sanders received his money. Her removal would send a message to the party and be a good start to the process.
"deficit obesssion" wow. what a term - its like Krugman is diagnosing an illness he doesnt understand. I am a moderate Republican; i have no issue with deiicit spending in downturns to spur the economy. basic Keynesian stuff - borrow during recession and pay the debt back when the economy rebounds. The problem is that it is not ever being paid back. The national debt is fast approaching 20 TRILLION dollars, and we borrow to spend like drunken sailors in good times and bad. being concerned about the outcome here is not a crazy "obession". I would have a lot more respect for Krugman and the spend spend spend economists on the left if they would admit that there even is a ceiling we cant borrow past and be healthy. what is the red line number - $30 trillion? 50? if you beleive in your theories then pin it down and tell us what level we can borrow up to until it is a problem. there has to BE a number, ignoring it just destroys the argument that deficits dont matter.
We should re-define what a higher standard of living for the broad middle would entail through a higher provisioning of public goods that lifts everyone's standard of living, not a few in the top 10 percent. More and better transportation, better parks and infrastructure, higher quality and more durable housing, better education and health care. Then we should go about building such a society.
2
Speaking of infrastructure, my wife and I just drove from Maryland to Chicago this past week using the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Ohio Turnpike and the Indiana Toll Road to get here. While the still publicly owned (via commissions) PA and OH turnpikes are in pretty good shape, the privately owned ITR is a nightmare, albeit due to several “under construction” stretches. But if you want to know why Indiana Governor Pence never talks about the ITR privatization experiment – Google it and find out how more and more foreign entities own our highways and have made them costlier to use and not much better to ride on?
Hillary $275 billion infrastructure plan is the best thing that can happen to our nation – it’s heartbreaking to see how dilapidated our bridges and roadways have become?
Hillary $275 billion infrastructure plan is the best thing that can happen to our nation – it’s heartbreaking to see how dilapidated our bridges and roadways have become?
7
"...According to the budget office, potential growth was pretty stable from 1970 to 2000, with nothing either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton did making much obvious difference...."
What revisionist nonsense! Those of us who lived through the Carter disaster and the Reagan 25-year boom have a very different understanding of economics than this "economic expert".
I recommend everyone read "The Seven Fat Years" by Robert Bartley for some better insight.
What revisionist nonsense! Those of us who lived through the Carter disaster and the Reagan 25-year boom have a very different understanding of economics than this "economic expert".
I recommend everyone read "The Seven Fat Years" by Robert Bartley for some better insight.
'scuse me: the Reagan 25-year boom? He was president for just 8 years.
2
Sadly, much of the desires of all the people is to put in less while gaining much more.
Science Alert, that is not going to happen.
What many of us fail to grasp about the GDP is that many want that old job but they do not want near the work that that old job used to entail. "I want my old assembly line job back but I want a swivel chair where I can just roll every few minute few minutes to the next task without leaving the chair." Our robust work culture and productivity went the way of our waist line, way out of accord with reality. Everyone wants to carry on a cell chat while the work waits. Productivity in the mean time is shot to hell.
Blaming Clinton or believing those other people is not holding water. We have to buckle up to the near reality, something that pols will not admit if they want to get elected, we have to do more with less. We have to do more learning and growing while also being flexible. A little sweat is not going to kill us, quite the opposite, it might just be what the honest doctor would order but doctors don't tell the truth either any longer, they are in a fight for patients so they too tell us what we want to hear.
Being in Asia, I do see the jobs that start before 7:15 am and end at 6 pm while paying less than McD. If we won't get more education, we will see less and less real productivity while other countries do the manufacturing..
Science Alert, that is not going to happen.
What many of us fail to grasp about the GDP is that many want that old job but they do not want near the work that that old job used to entail. "I want my old assembly line job back but I want a swivel chair where I can just roll every few minute few minutes to the next task without leaving the chair." Our robust work culture and productivity went the way of our waist line, way out of accord with reality. Everyone wants to carry on a cell chat while the work waits. Productivity in the mean time is shot to hell.
Blaming Clinton or believing those other people is not holding water. We have to buckle up to the near reality, something that pols will not admit if they want to get elected, we have to do more with less. We have to do more learning and growing while also being flexible. A little sweat is not going to kill us, quite the opposite, it might just be what the honest doctor would order but doctors don't tell the truth either any longer, they are in a fight for patients so they too tell us what we want to hear.
Being in Asia, I do see the jobs that start before 7:15 am and end at 6 pm while paying less than McD. If we won't get more education, we will see less and less real productivity while other countries do the manufacturing..
1
"what do we know about accelerating long-run growth?"
One thing for sure - growth requires permanent business capital and raising rates at the high brackets is a guaranteed way to reduce the growth of small business capital.
An excavator looking at bidding on a new infrastructure job needs the down payment on a new backhoe but his higher tax rates took it away. How simple is that?
One thing for sure - growth requires permanent business capital and raising rates at the high brackets is a guaranteed way to reduce the growth of small business capital.
An excavator looking at bidding on a new infrastructure job needs the down payment on a new backhoe but his higher tax rates took it away. How simple is that?
"Let’s not forget, for example, what Marco Rubio was doing in the memorized sentence he famously couldn’t stop repeating."
Marco Rubio is long gone .... and Krugman can't stop repeating himself!
Give him a moment, and he'll start savaging ... Mitt Romney again.
Mitt Romney. You remember the quiet, decent guy who ran for President and whom Krugman called a “charlatan,” pathologically dishonest, and untrustworthy, who doesn’t even pretend to care about poor people and wants people to die so that the rich could get richer, who is “completely amoral,” “a dangerous fool,” and “ignorant as well as uncaring”?
Krugman is more interested in prosecuting his personal feud with the hapless GOP establishment than he is with defeating Donald Trump. The result is that he has given Trump a virtually free pass. (I suppose he used up all is ammo on Romney)
He can't open his mouth without putting his foot in it -- the one he hasn't shot himself in. Call him the left's answer to Trump, except without the sense of humor.
Marco Rubio is long gone .... and Krugman can't stop repeating himself!
Give him a moment, and he'll start savaging ... Mitt Romney again.
Mitt Romney. You remember the quiet, decent guy who ran for President and whom Krugman called a “charlatan,” pathologically dishonest, and untrustworthy, who doesn’t even pretend to care about poor people and wants people to die so that the rich could get richer, who is “completely amoral,” “a dangerous fool,” and “ignorant as well as uncaring”?
Krugman is more interested in prosecuting his personal feud with the hapless GOP establishment than he is with defeating Donald Trump. The result is that he has given Trump a virtually free pass. (I suppose he used up all is ammo on Romney)
He can't open his mouth without putting his foot in it -- the one he hasn't shot himself in. Call him the left's answer to Trump, except without the sense of humor.
2
Well, if ones wants to make the gender an issue, look at the players. Clinton and Warren are both speaking the same language to a degree, as do many highly competent, Democratic women in politics. Where is the money, who is paying, and how do we benefit the MOST people with all of it? Something Republicans haven't been saying since Eisenhower.
2
Well. President Obama will be the first president in history to never see 3% GDP growth. I don't think Hillary's promise of more of the same 'ol, same 'ol will inspire many voters.
1
Obama followed Bush-- the worst president in US history, remember-- the guy who lead us into two unfunded wars and did nothing to stop the implosion of the economy and the housing market. Those pieces of humpty dumpty were pretty hard to put together again. And I am not a huge Obama fan-- just stating the facts you GOP folks so conveniently forget.
The press really does hate Hillary. Led by the NYTime's Ms. Dowd (go read her Sunday column), I expect snark, unrealistic expectations and anti-Hillary spin to be the order of the day for the 1st HRC term, and probably the 2nd. Oh, and no credit when she does anything right. Kind of like the campaign coverage.
As for economic growth, the key was reviewed in Sunday's NYTimes Business section in the article about Corporate America's obsession with stock buy-backs. The majority of corporate profits now go to stock buy-backs, and have done so for the past 10 years. If you want economic growth, corporate America needs to start investing in America. Stock buy-backs should be made illegal. Corporate profits should make new products, buy new factories, hiring Americans (and giving them raises) and acquire start-ups, not be used for short term stock manipulation.
As for economic growth, the key was reviewed in Sunday's NYTimes Business section in the article about Corporate America's obsession with stock buy-backs. The majority of corporate profits now go to stock buy-backs, and have done so for the past 10 years. If you want economic growth, corporate America needs to start investing in America. Stock buy-backs should be made illegal. Corporate profits should make new products, buy new factories, hiring Americans (and giving them raises) and acquire start-ups, not be used for short term stock manipulation.
There are only two roads that president Clinton can take next January. One free of GOP obstruction or 4 more years of gridlock. If she has the votes in Congress we get a new tax code and a new VRA and yes infrastructure.
Logically it is easier to disprove than prove a proposition. That's why the legal system does not require that we prove people innocent. In the economic arena, we have a good deal of negative evidence that is compelling. Since 1980, Reaganomics has dominated economic thinking--even to some extent for Democrats--and the only economic propositions we have had from Republicans involve more tax cuts for rich people. The phrase "pro growth" has come to mean tax cuts at the high end. We now know as a matter of certainty that tax cuts that go only to rich people (as Reagan's and Bush II's did) do not stimulate economic growth. The central tenet of Reaganomics has been disproved. People who keep claiming tax cuts work are no better than climate change deniers. Now we've got to figure out what might work better. Personally, I think some of Hillary's ideas might be good starting points.
I don't have any doubts that Hillary Clinton, after all she's gone through, has the fortitude to be "brave" in forcefully articulating a workable (in both senses of the word) plan for the economy. What she does need, as I've written elsewhere, is a "BIG idea" that highlights what she means by spending putting billions of dollars, and millions of people to work in repairing our infrastructure. If we are to compete with Germany and China, we need to invest in a major project like high-speed rail that will move both people and commercial goods at speeds up to 250-300 miles per hour using green energy perhaps from manufacturing plants located in depressed Appalachian coal country. Americans are clamoring for work that pays better than the proposed $12 or $15 per hour minimum wages and a lot of the anti-trade anger, and social and political unrest stems from wage stagnation and income inequality. Such a centerpiece would show disgruntled and distrustful voters that Secretary Clinton like Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy can think big and deliver if it galvanizes them to vote in November and retake control of Congress from the Party of No.
2
There is actually a very good historical foundation for the claim that much greater public investment in infrastructure, education, research and development, would increase economic growth. Here I summarize 6 recent books that make this case: http://washingtonmonthly.com/government-investment-opportunity-for-all
3
Dr. Krugman, I appreciate Monday mornings beginning with the Serenity Prayer, thank you.
As virtually all developed economies are facing lower birth rates, by design given global overpopulation, we must focus on what we can sensibly change to continue to lift standards of living higher.
There are structural impediments to improving standards of living, including the massive tax and other preferences we give to developing machine and wealth capital over human capital.
There is a clear skills gap in US unemployment shown by the JOLT survey.
This requires higher education and real non-profit vocational schools with German-style apprenticeships to address structural unemployment, particularly those communities that have lived for years in poverty.
We need enhanced infrastructure and more basic research that would not only create jobs but improve productivity for generations.
Finally and fundamentally we must change our regressive tax system that concentrates wealth.
An increasing share of federal receipts come from regressive payroll taxes.
Shifting payroll taxes to the general budget would help create jobs and improve after-tax income for some 95% of people and small businesses.
Corporate taxes have been a shrinking contributor. By ending the deferral of taxation before repatriation we can end the corporate shell game of tax dodges.
Wealth and income inequality is like a pyramid upside-down, very unstable unstable.
As virtually all developed economies are facing lower birth rates, by design given global overpopulation, we must focus on what we can sensibly change to continue to lift standards of living higher.
There are structural impediments to improving standards of living, including the massive tax and other preferences we give to developing machine and wealth capital over human capital.
There is a clear skills gap in US unemployment shown by the JOLT survey.
This requires higher education and real non-profit vocational schools with German-style apprenticeships to address structural unemployment, particularly those communities that have lived for years in poverty.
We need enhanced infrastructure and more basic research that would not only create jobs but improve productivity for generations.
Finally and fundamentally we must change our regressive tax system that concentrates wealth.
An increasing share of federal receipts come from regressive payroll taxes.
Shifting payroll taxes to the general budget would help create jobs and improve after-tax income for some 95% of people and small businesses.
Corporate taxes have been a shrinking contributor. By ending the deferral of taxation before repatriation we can end the corporate shell game of tax dodges.
Wealth and income inequality is like a pyramid upside-down, very unstable unstable.
3
May I just add that at the state level taxation is even more regressive? Bridge tolls, sales tax, airport tax, even property taxes-- fall disproportionately on the poor and middle class and matter not at all to the wealthy.
2
I usually agree with Nobel Laureate Krugman, but this piece is completely off the mark.
“According to the budget office, potential growth was pretty stable from 1970 to 2000, with nothing either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton did making much obvious difference.”
“Bushonomics”
There is no such thing as Bushonomics. The problem with the US economy is Reaganomics. Laffer’s trickle-down baloney that really meant and means “flood upwards” of most new wealth which accelerated during Bush’s terms and the era of low interest rates. The wealth has already been redistributed. It went to the top 0.1% or even 0.01%. When so-called progressives talk about a redistribution of wealth, that’s a stupid way to describe what is needed. We need a return of the distribution of wealth to what it was when we were most successful. The current distribution looks almost exactly like it did at the end of the robber-baron era 100 years ago.
Policies that return the wealth distribution to a more reasonable one are needed.
We might not be able to grow at 3.5%, but combined with a large infrastructure program, we could grow at 2.5%. As Bill Gates pointed out, large companies used to pay about 4% of profits as taxes. Now, they pay 2%. Much of the missing 2% goes to those multi-national corporations and the wealthy who own large shares of those companies. A tax code written by lobbyists representing crony capitalists is the central problem. And, Laffer now advises Trump! I’d laugh, but this is no joke.
“According to the budget office, potential growth was pretty stable from 1970 to 2000, with nothing either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton did making much obvious difference.”
“Bushonomics”
There is no such thing as Bushonomics. The problem with the US economy is Reaganomics. Laffer’s trickle-down baloney that really meant and means “flood upwards” of most new wealth which accelerated during Bush’s terms and the era of low interest rates. The wealth has already been redistributed. It went to the top 0.1% or even 0.01%. When so-called progressives talk about a redistribution of wealth, that’s a stupid way to describe what is needed. We need a return of the distribution of wealth to what it was when we were most successful. The current distribution looks almost exactly like it did at the end of the robber-baron era 100 years ago.
Policies that return the wealth distribution to a more reasonable one are needed.
We might not be able to grow at 3.5%, but combined with a large infrastructure program, we could grow at 2.5%. As Bill Gates pointed out, large companies used to pay about 4% of profits as taxes. Now, they pay 2%. Much of the missing 2% goes to those multi-national corporations and the wealthy who own large shares of those companies. A tax code written by lobbyists representing crony capitalists is the central problem. And, Laffer now advises Trump! I’d laugh, but this is no joke.
2
Wouldn't it be greater yet if Mrs. Clinton went back to Milwaukee's Sherman Park, a place she already visited during the primary, and outlined her vision for helping people there get decent-paying, family-supporting jobs? If there's a place that badly needs its infrastructure rebuilt, physical as well as human, Sherman Park is it.
1
Infrastructure spending should not just be roads, bridges and ports, it should be aimed at long term blue sky science and technology projects too. Otherwise, the roads, bridges and ports go to nowhere and no place.
5
Big increases in productivity today don't come from time and motion studies - - - standing over a worker with a stopwatch and yelling 'faster! faster! faster! Rather big increases in productivity today come from using technology to enable a worker to produce more in the same amount of time.
Unfortunately, most jobs that most readily lend themselves to a technological boost in productivity have been shifted abroad. And, irony of ironies, foreign workers are usually less productive than domestic workers they replace. But overseas wages are so much lower that employers still profit from the shift.
The economy here is now dominated by the service sector, which was once a derivative of the productive sectors. I don't know how you can get GDP growth back above two percent with that mix.
Unfortunately, most jobs that most readily lend themselves to a technological boost in productivity have been shifted abroad. And, irony of ironies, foreign workers are usually less productive than domestic workers they replace. But overseas wages are so much lower that employers still profit from the shift.
The economy here is now dominated by the service sector, which was once a derivative of the productive sectors. I don't know how you can get GDP growth back above two percent with that mix.
2
Here's my beef: Krugman does highlight a positive sounding agenda on behalf of Clinton. The problem is how we go about achieving even the most modest of these lofty soundbites. The process matters as much as the outcome. I really don't trust Clinton to comport herself in the manner that the campaign promises once she's an executive. An outdated reference to the twice rejected Bush agenda does little to settle my Clintonian unease.
I'd argue Clinton is right of center with a litany of historical baggage. Social liberalism is a political necessity for her rather than a core value. I'm anticipating many in her collation will eventually get thrown under the bus when politically convenient. We just don't know who yet. When Krugman hypothesizes the ideal Republican candidate, his description sounds more like Clinton than anyone else. I'm sure that was intentional.
I'd argue Clinton is right of center with a litany of historical baggage. Social liberalism is a political necessity for her rather than a core value. I'm anticipating many in her collation will eventually get thrown under the bus when politically convenient. We just don't know who yet. When Krugman hypothesizes the ideal Republican candidate, his description sounds more like Clinton than anyone else. I'm sure that was intentional.
3
Just who in the Republican Party will work with her after the denigration, demonization, and disregard for the Republicans of the last eight years by her and her fellow Democrats?
With the deep divisiveness in today's political landscape, I believe Hillary's incremental approach to be the best way to go, for now. Depending on how the Senate and House pan out, Hillary will either be able to proceed forcefully or more moderately.
Hillary is a consensus builder, and as much as we liberal Democrats would love a slant more toward Senator Sanders goals, we first must convince enough sane Republicans, and with Trump as their nominee, we are now able to identify those Republicans who will be more liable to work with Hillary. They who hold elected may not be able abandon Trump now, but his defeat should be a warning shot across the bow that the GOP is in serious trouble if they continue to kowtow to the Right Wing Tea Party patriots instead of working with Hillary. Like days of old when bipartisanship was the norm, Hillary may convince enough of them her policies could be viewed as as win-win for both sides. We shall see.
One thing to remember, Hillary hasn't come this far do just rest on her historical laurels as the first female American president. Hillary has always been someone who, when given any task, puts her nose to the grindstone and gets to work. There will be more after hours cocktails with the loyal opposition than time spent on the golf course. Golfing schmooze fests will be Bill's forte. Hillary is not a golfer. She's a doer, or make that a Dewar's, on the rocks.
DD
Manhattan
Hillary is a consensus builder, and as much as we liberal Democrats would love a slant more toward Senator Sanders goals, we first must convince enough sane Republicans, and with Trump as their nominee, we are now able to identify those Republicans who will be more liable to work with Hillary. They who hold elected may not be able abandon Trump now, but his defeat should be a warning shot across the bow that the GOP is in serious trouble if they continue to kowtow to the Right Wing Tea Party patriots instead of working with Hillary. Like days of old when bipartisanship was the norm, Hillary may convince enough of them her policies could be viewed as as win-win for both sides. We shall see.
One thing to remember, Hillary hasn't come this far do just rest on her historical laurels as the first female American president. Hillary has always been someone who, when given any task, puts her nose to the grindstone and gets to work. There will be more after hours cocktails with the loyal opposition than time spent on the golf course. Golfing schmooze fests will be Bill's forte. Hillary is not a golfer. She's a doer, or make that a Dewar's, on the rocks.
DD
Manhattan
7
Dr. Krugman, how sensible all this sounds. As the writer from Mesa, AZ, put it Hillary might as well start out by acting like FDR. More bravado on the infrastructure spending which seems to me the best way forward out of our rather stagnant, not broken, economy. But how to avoid a battle w/Congress over spending? The GOP's major theme, or was before The Donald, was/is the deficit, the deficit and how we must think of our grandchildren or our great-grands and other future doom and gloom unknown prophecies. But spending won't solve all the problems from the destitute coal mining places (always poor, always destitute) to the rust belt decay (once thriving, now moribund); it will take new ideas to be formulated. To replace fossil fuels, yes, even gasoline, spend less money on roads and more on rail, rapid and regular. All can see wind and solar picking up speed as it were. Hillary is not a happy warrior, but she has wisdom and courage to consider things. As she might say, what difference does it make if some of her ideas were pushed there by Bernie? Proposals will be that until the new president and congress convene in 2017.
2
She's an interim caretaker for a moribund system. Something better (or worse) will have to wait until 2020
5
While I agree that growth above the population growth rate is important, perhaps the question we should be asking is how much? Over-heating growth simply steals growth from the future as it takes time to catch up to over-growth, just like in overbuilding real estate. We should be aiming for steady growth rather than rapid growth.
Infrastructure is the obvious place to create growth, but we actually are getting the timing all wrong. Infrastructure growth is best used during an economic slowdown. The present low borrowing environment makes it very attractive, but if we choose to exercise it now we need to responsibly pair it with a use tax to fully repay debt in a reasonable period of time and keep it more modest. For example, now is a great time to raise the gas tax $0.50/gallon to pay for a longterm (15 year+ project) to rebuild bridges &roads/public transit, but we need to retain the ability to accelerate it during a recession.
The irony is that GOP economics that used to be far more reasonable has been turned on its head by Bushism (not Reaganism, as he removed loopholes & taxed capital gains as ordinary income).
Infrastructure is the obvious place to create growth, but we actually are getting the timing all wrong. Infrastructure growth is best used during an economic slowdown. The present low borrowing environment makes it very attractive, but if we choose to exercise it now we need to responsibly pair it with a use tax to fully repay debt in a reasonable period of time and keep it more modest. For example, now is a great time to raise the gas tax $0.50/gallon to pay for a longterm (15 year+ project) to rebuild bridges &roads/public transit, but we need to retain the ability to accelerate it during a recession.
The irony is that GOP economics that used to be far more reasonable has been turned on its head by Bushism (not Reaganism, as he removed loopholes & taxed capital gains as ordinary income).
I always question the premise of growth. We after all, live on a fixed sized biosphere. So the idea of every increasing growth, within a fixed sized bubble cannot have a good long term prospect.
I'd like to see economists work on theory of how to have a robust economy that does not rely on growth as a primary pillar. Why do we need a constant upward trajectory of growth? What if population decreases? Do we then need to maintain constant upward economic growth? What if an economy shrinks 2%? Can mechanisms be devised that help to spread this across the economy so every one had 2% less, rather than have a subset of the population lose complete employment? Wouldn't such mechanisms make the economy more resilient?
While I don't currently know the specific challenges and obstacles to such ideas, we are going to need to address them eventually. Now could be just as good a time as any to start.
I'd like to see economists work on theory of how to have a robust economy that does not rely on growth as a primary pillar. Why do we need a constant upward trajectory of growth? What if population decreases? Do we then need to maintain constant upward economic growth? What if an economy shrinks 2%? Can mechanisms be devised that help to spread this across the economy so every one had 2% less, rather than have a subset of the population lose complete employment? Wouldn't such mechanisms make the economy more resilient?
While I don't currently know the specific challenges and obstacles to such ideas, we are going to need to address them eventually. Now could be just as good a time as any to start.
3
Is everyone participating in the shared economy being counted?
If Uber and its competitors have gotten so big, people are driving those cars who may have worked in factories or other places before now.
There are so many new types of entrepreneurial jobs now. How are they being counted?
Have the statisticians figured out ways to count all of the new
types of workers and jobs?
I understand that workers may want more job security and may want greater earning potential but they can get health care wherever they are now, (although cost is another issue, I know.)
I am not making excuses but the fact is that there has been a sea change in the world economy and reporting has to adjust to it to give an accurate picture.
In addition, executive pay has to be reigned in and the wealth spread around to insure maximum employment and investment.
If Uber and its competitors have gotten so big, people are driving those cars who may have worked in factories or other places before now.
There are so many new types of entrepreneurial jobs now. How are they being counted?
Have the statisticians figured out ways to count all of the new
types of workers and jobs?
I understand that workers may want more job security and may want greater earning potential but they can get health care wherever they are now, (although cost is another issue, I know.)
I am not making excuses but the fact is that there has been a sea change in the world economy and reporting has to adjust to it to give an accurate picture.
In addition, executive pay has to be reigned in and the wealth spread around to insure maximum employment and investment.
1
I keep waiting for someone to include small business in future economic growth planning and investment. By small business I mean companies with fewer than 50 employees, companies that produce tangible products and non-financial services, companies that employ full time, well paid hourly workers that pay taxes and contribute to (the meager) retirement and health care programs we already have in place. We promote ourselves as the vanguard of free enterprise and do little or nothing to train, encourage and subsidize the the likely generators of future employment- small businesses. Shouldn't we be teaching basic business skills in primary school? Shouldn't we reform banking to produce banks that make micro loans and promote business incubation? Shouldn't we refocus some of the vast amounts of revenue we dole out to giant corporate interests, that historically show little or no national loyalty? Shouldn't some of that redirected largess be put toward the companies that will likely always be American, the ones down the street that employs dozens, not the ones running to Ireland? Shouldn't we at least talk about ideas like this? It is clear that future employment will likely be provided by small companies using a combination of technology, human skill and imagination to produce products and services we have not yet imagined. Shouldn't we be preparing for that?
2
Ms Clinton's "left-center vision" is pure, poll-tested marketing fluff. Pretty much anyone watching the primaries could see that she was pulled far to the left of her original platform by Sanders' challenge. The idea that she would turn on her wealthy financial backers and significantly raise their taxes is ludicrous. That is not how the Clintons operate. They are the ultimate back room deal brokers. Every once in a while, the ugly truth shows a bit, as in the recent Debbie Wasserman Shultz fiasco.
Hillary is also politically savvy enough to realize that she can make hundreds of rosy, progressive sounding speeches, and eventually even shame congress publicly by asking for these reforms with zero percent chance that they will ever gain any traction in the current Congress. Sorry supporters, I tried. Oh well.
Barack Obama played the progressive hope and change character with far more finesse than Hillary, and then abandoned those admirable goals once in office to give us continued war in the middle east, pandering to the financial industry, zero progress on global warming, and support for corporate dictated trade capitulations. I shudder to think what Hillary has in store for us. No, I am not suggesting that anyone vote for the Donald, either. Both parties saw strong revolts led from within that challenged their appointment of insiders. It is now time for the "base" of both parties to abandon them completely.
Hillary is also politically savvy enough to realize that she can make hundreds of rosy, progressive sounding speeches, and eventually even shame congress publicly by asking for these reforms with zero percent chance that they will ever gain any traction in the current Congress. Sorry supporters, I tried. Oh well.
Barack Obama played the progressive hope and change character with far more finesse than Hillary, and then abandoned those admirable goals once in office to give us continued war in the middle east, pandering to the financial industry, zero progress on global warming, and support for corporate dictated trade capitulations. I shudder to think what Hillary has in store for us. No, I am not suggesting that anyone vote for the Donald, either. Both parties saw strong revolts led from within that challenged their appointment of insiders. It is now time for the "base" of both parties to abandon them completely.
6
I agree with your Obama commentary. I think he was politically naive and lacked experience. Maybe, just maybe HRC will do better. But she can't do it without a dem-dominated congress. All the support in the world from fair-weather republicans like meg Whitman will not bring her (and us) what we need. HRC needs to talk about getting people registered and getting people to the polls-- to vote Democratic.
"So it’s actually quite brave to say: “Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.” Wouldn’t it be great if that kind of policy honesty became the norm?" Mondale tried that.
3
Baby boomers are retiring? I am a baby boomer who would love to work. I had "gigs," meaning "contract" employment, as a programmer and web developer here and there. I'm no longer looking or seldom looking for work because I got tired of sitting in reception areas with surf boards and glass walls where I could see cubicles with kids younger than my own son while awaiting my interview. While employed at a short term "contract" I got tired of being both the oldest and the least sharp or quick person at a table full of very young people. At lunch I was relatively quiet and dumbfounded as I listened to excited discussions about certain moves to a video game.
For me to stay in the work force would mean much more opportunity and jobs available. Currently it is very competitive even for the young person. Also, why should I deny a young person the opportunity to start a life when I can cash in on selling assets, retirement IRA, or even Social Security, things an average young person doesn't have? Maybe it's rationale to step aside, but I would prefer to work.
For me to stay in the work force would mean much more opportunity and jobs available. Currently it is very competitive even for the young person. Also, why should I deny a young person the opportunity to start a life when I can cash in on selling assets, retirement IRA, or even Social Security, things an average young person doesn't have? Maybe it's rationale to step aside, but I would prefer to work.
10
hillary is still stealing Sander's ideas just as she stole the nomination! And now paul embraces the ideas he was so critical of before.
4
She did not steal the nomination. Please just stop.
For example, just one of the myths debunked: http://www.snopes.com/votes-switched-sanders-clinton/
California ended up 8% not 12 or 13. She did well in New York because they actually, you know, had her as a senator and knew her directly.
For example, just one of the myths debunked: http://www.snopes.com/votes-switched-sanders-clinton/
California ended up 8% not 12 or 13. She did well in New York because they actually, you know, had her as a senator and knew her directly.
1
Susan:
What happened to "power corrupting"? Does that apply only to Republicans?
What happened to "power corrupting"? Does that apply only to Republicans?
1
Who's the liar now? HRC or the Bushonomics fans?
HRC's a poor liar. Even when she tells the truth, it comes across as lie, unfortunately. Bill Clinton also had that syndrome. When he said, "I didn't inhale, that may have been true, but appeared as a boldfaced lie. When he famously or infamously said, "I didn't have sex with that 'woman', was it a boldfaced lie? No, he DID Not have intercourse with Monica Lewinsky.
Can you expect better than that when you talk about a sexual indiscretion?
HRC's a poor liar. Even when she tells the truth, it comes across as lie, unfortunately. Bill Clinton also had that syndrome. When he said, "I didn't inhale, that may have been true, but appeared as a boldfaced lie. When he famously or infamously said, "I didn't have sex with that 'woman', was it a boldfaced lie? No, he DID Not have intercourse with Monica Lewinsky.
Can you expect better than that when you talk about a sexual indiscretion?
3
Please watch this 15-mt-segent of a 2-hr-20/20 show-interview of Monica Lewinsky, the 5th part of 6-part interview .
I always felt Monica was a great, loyal and sincere woman. Because of her "sacrifice," Bill Clinton wasn't convicted by US Senate. If you watch that 15-mt-segment, you can also see how compassionate and sincere Bill Clinton was. His CGI has done enormous good for the Third World. If you read a short column David Gergen wrote for TIME or Newsweek, in early 2000s, you can again see how sincere & decent Bill Clinton has been.
If you remember what Billy Graham told Bill Clinton, in the middle 2000s, paraphrasing, "You should be preacher. Give the governing part to Hillary Clinton!" - I heard this on" This Week w, G. Stephanopoulos."
I always felt Monica was a great, loyal and sincere woman. Because of her "sacrifice," Bill Clinton wasn't convicted by US Senate. If you watch that 15-mt-segment, you can also see how compassionate and sincere Bill Clinton was. His CGI has done enormous good for the Third World. If you read a short column David Gergen wrote for TIME or Newsweek, in early 2000s, you can again see how sincere & decent Bill Clinton has been.
If you remember what Billy Graham told Bill Clinton, in the middle 2000s, paraphrasing, "You should be preacher. Give the governing part to Hillary Clinton!" - I heard this on" This Week w, G. Stephanopoulos."
1
I thought I had the link for Monica Lewinsky interview.
Sorry, f I didn't.
What good is growth if a person doesn't get any of it? In the US case, the vast majority are not getting this growth in income, however big or small. The measure of GDP growth is oversold as a proxy for economic well-being. This measure should be reformulated as an index that incorporates its distribution. I'd like to hear a news anchor say "bad news on the economic front released today, income growth was poorly distributed once again this quarter. So that 3% annual growth figure really doesn't matter for most of you." Economics needs a better set of measures to discuss the matter of overall social welfare.
5
AMEN!!!
If we don't measure how well the "little guy" is doing, without him having to do anything special to improve his own lot other than showing up at work, then the current measure are empty ones. Dr. Krugman, I suggest this: create a council of working class people: 60% women, 40% men, include all races and religions, all adult ages, and LGBT folks and some immigrants. Garage mechanics, bus drivers, subway workers, housecleaners, waitresses, store clerks, house painters, plumbers, car wash workers, school teachers (not university professors), janitors, construction workers, nurses, etc. Then, sit them down in a room and ask them what they need and want. It might open your eyes.
They want housing, clothing, food on the table, good schools for the kids. They want sports, cars and trucks, some "recreation", probably guns, and a quiet, calm life in a job that is "secure". They don't want to hear about foreign relations, international monetary deals, or global issues. They do not want their kids to go to war, they do not want execs to get millions of dollars when they have no jobs and schools are awful. They don't care about your books, your expertise or that of your colleagues. They do not read books, they are not big thinkers, they watch TV (a lot).
They are angry that jobs went overseas, that corporations can do whatever they want, that the air, water and food chain is dangerous but they do not know why or what to do about it.
Try it, Paul. You might learn a lot.
If we don't measure how well the "little guy" is doing, without him having to do anything special to improve his own lot other than showing up at work, then the current measure are empty ones. Dr. Krugman, I suggest this: create a council of working class people: 60% women, 40% men, include all races and religions, all adult ages, and LGBT folks and some immigrants. Garage mechanics, bus drivers, subway workers, housecleaners, waitresses, store clerks, house painters, plumbers, car wash workers, school teachers (not university professors), janitors, construction workers, nurses, etc. Then, sit them down in a room and ask them what they need and want. It might open your eyes.
They want housing, clothing, food on the table, good schools for the kids. They want sports, cars and trucks, some "recreation", probably guns, and a quiet, calm life in a job that is "secure". They don't want to hear about foreign relations, international monetary deals, or global issues. They do not want their kids to go to war, they do not want execs to get millions of dollars when they have no jobs and schools are awful. They don't care about your books, your expertise or that of your colleagues. They do not read books, they are not big thinkers, they watch TV (a lot).
They are angry that jobs went overseas, that corporations can do whatever they want, that the air, water and food chain is dangerous but they do not know why or what to do about it.
Try it, Paul. You might learn a lot.
2
"They don't read books." Exactly. And this is why neither they nor their children will ever succeed in the new world of technology-based global economy. They don't understand this world, they are afraid of knowledge, the lack curiosity, they do nothing to improve themselves. And they should be the ultimate authority to decide on the complex issues on which even Nobel prize winners cannot agree? Sure, let's appoint a plumber to do brain surgery, a cleaner to head the Stock Exchange, a janitor to be Dean of Computer Sciences, and a gun-obsessed redneck as Chief of Staff. This was tried - in the USSR and Mao's China. But to know how it ended, one would need to read a book - and we cannot ask this of "working people", can we?
The question is how hard the GOPers will fight for Austerity, rather than Stimulus, as they pick apart anything that another President Clinton might suggest. You know that their go=-to guy, in wrong-headed economics, will want to focus on balancing the budget. Just contract the economy until it shrinks out of sight.
The Republican Party is still sore because it cannot figure how to gerrymander a win in the Presidential Race. Oh well, Boca Raton is till in Palm Beach Country, Flor-i-DUH!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The Republican Party is still sore because it cannot figure how to gerrymander a win in the Presidential Race. Oh well, Boca Raton is till in Palm Beach Country, Flor-i-DUH!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
Hey Paul Krugman, how about we ask Ireland? Japan, not so much.
The GOP mythical candidate would have been John Huntsman.
One of the few Republicans that were actually intelligent, rational and had some common sense. But, four years ago, he wouldn't play the "Game"!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
One of the few Republicans that were actually intelligent, rational and had some common sense. But, four years ago, he wouldn't play the "Game"!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
Why the economy failed to improve under Obama
""After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. But unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health-care reform."
Senator Charles E Schumer (D) 11/25/14
Mr. Schumer is the designated leader of the Democrats in the Senate.
""After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. But unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health-care reform."
Senator Charles E Schumer (D) 11/25/14
Mr. Schumer is the designated leader of the Democrats in the Senate.
4
Fabulous! So glad *somebody* is saying it. Van Jones' insight on Hillary seems right to me: the workaholic dogooder chick.
"I don’t think enough people appreciate the courage involved in focusing on things we actually know how to do, as opposed to happy talk about wondrous growth." associated with the Serenity Prayer is just right.
All *we* have to do is work hard to bring some thoughtful compassionate public servants (AKA Democrats) into Congress, both houses, states, and municipalities. Then we can begin the hard work of taking greed, hoarding, and looting out of the public sphere, and making ourselves a community that works together to solve problems.
History, unfortunately, does not support me. Realists are handicapped in the face of the powerful acquiring power, the wealthy wanting more, and all ready to destroy common property (the environment: air, water earth) to get more of theirs.
"I don’t think enough people appreciate the courage involved in focusing on things we actually know how to do, as opposed to happy talk about wondrous growth." associated with the Serenity Prayer is just right.
All *we* have to do is work hard to bring some thoughtful compassionate public servants (AKA Democrats) into Congress, both houses, states, and municipalities. Then we can begin the hard work of taking greed, hoarding, and looting out of the public sphere, and making ourselves a community that works together to solve problems.
History, unfortunately, does not support me. Realists are handicapped in the face of the powerful acquiring power, the wealthy wanting more, and all ready to destroy common property (the environment: air, water earth) to get more of theirs.
3
Dismissal by PK of Trump's claim that Obama is the founder of ISIS deserves scrutiny. DT did not mean this to be taken literally. What he meant to say is that Obama's failure to grasp, understand problems West faces in ME, exemplified by his pull back on his red line ultimatum to Assad, his inertia when it comes to learning the languages, Farsi and Arabic which underpin the cultures of the region,have led to a common perception that he is overwhelmed, and forced to go along with military's strategy of bombing ISIS strongholds with attendant collateral damage. O did not cause ISIS. The Caliphate, which grew out of insurgency by Baathist officers after the US invasion, would have come into being anyway.West is paying the piper for decades of imperialism,suppression of Arab nationalist movements, support of the apartheid state of Israel, and buttressing of corrupt dictatorships. Remember Sykes Picot?PK and Clinton have much in common:Both r part of the liberal elite, and both r 1 percenters.It is an illusion that Clinton will be any more adept at solving problems of inequality than O was not.As an economist, PK should also know that employment figures r illusory. So many have dropped out of labor force, and jobs added r part time, under 30 hours weekly in order that employer can avoid paying health benefits.These r positions with no future.Recall Reston's admonition not to put anyone in the WH who is over 70. By the end of her first term, HRC will be over 70.
2
“Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.”
Yeah. And the American people would applaud your courage and honesty - then crush you in the election.
Yeah. And the American people would applaud your courage and honesty - then crush you in the election.
3
"...insisting that [Hillary] would be losing badly if only the G.O.P. had nominated someone else."
Well, if that "someone else" Hillary would be losing badly to were as formidable as claimed, why then did he or she lose to Trump, who is now struggling against Hillary?!
Another claim we hear from conservative pundits is that "Hillary is a historically weak candidate", except that they seem to forget that she fought almost to a draw one Barack Obama, himself a formidable candidate who easily beat two mainstream GOP nominees in the general election!
"Fantasy football time in political punditry" sounds about right...
Well, if that "someone else" Hillary would be losing badly to were as formidable as claimed, why then did he or she lose to Trump, who is now struggling against Hillary?!
Another claim we hear from conservative pundits is that "Hillary is a historically weak candidate", except that they seem to forget that she fought almost to a draw one Barack Obama, himself a formidable candidate who easily beat two mainstream GOP nominees in the general election!
"Fantasy football time in political punditry" sounds about right...
3
Hey Paul,
Where is the honesty in saying that most modern economies that provide are only a fraction of the size of the US? And the honesty related to how much growth the economy will suffer due to strengthening the safety net?
Where is the honesty in saying that most modern economies that provide are only a fraction of the size of the US? And the honesty related to how much growth the economy will suffer due to strengthening the safety net?
"Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them."
Since when has this been an issue for Krugman? He advocates increased government spending whether tax rates are raised or not. The "stimulus package" can never be big enough for Krugman while a Democrat holds the White House. Not to forget the Krugman howler "the debt doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves."
Since when has this been an issue for Krugman? He advocates increased government spending whether tax rates are raised or not. The "stimulus package" can never be big enough for Krugman while a Democrat holds the White House. Not to forget the Krugman howler "the debt doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves."
2
"The "stimulus package" can never be big enough for Krugman while a Democrat holds the White House"
Even the government worshiping NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to impose or increase, has said on many occasions that "government is always inefficient and usually corrupt" so the bigger the government the greater the inefficiency and corruption.
Even the government worshiping NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to impose or increase, has said on many occasions that "government is always inefficient and usually corrupt" so the bigger the government the greater the inefficiency and corruption.
1
While " The subsequent slide began under George W. Bush and continued under Mr. Obama" I don't think either of them are responsible. I believe the responsibility for our situation started with Reagan and his trickle down economics and deregulation or more appropriately called stripping workers of their rights. Of course W's tax cuts for the rich while taking us into Iraq didn't help. But we are not at the culmination of 16 years of W and Obama. We are 36 years into a failed economic policy started by and still promoted by republicans.
5
Right on, especially with Mr. Krugman's desire to spend more on infrastructure which for the Republicans in Abraham Lincoln's day was a no brainer. (e.g., the railroads) but not today.
A point of disagreement, there was. Krugman to the contrary, ONE candidate who resembled the imaginary Republican they wish they had chosen, Governor John Kasich of Ohio, who also distinguished himself by honestly repudiating Donald Trump, in sharp contrast to, say,, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush's son, a man for whom expedience Trumped filial duty.
A point of disagreement, there was. Krugman to the contrary, ONE candidate who resembled the imaginary Republican they wish they had chosen, Governor John Kasich of Ohio, who also distinguished himself by honestly repudiating Donald Trump, in sharp contrast to, say,, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush's son, a man for whom expedience Trumped filial duty.
1
This is an interesting article. View the slide about "labor participation rate": it has never been 70%, BUT remains "down/lower" under Obama, as is average family wealth, and national wages. The just below quoted sentence from this article is utterly unproven nonsense and is presented as comfortable fact: NOT SO! Krugman's simply saying it, is not for it to be magically the case. Bills have to be paid by someone and there is not enough wealth in the wealthy to cover these expenses. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare are in DEEP financial trouble as are the similar programs in Brazil, France, Denmark, England,... "We know how to provide basic security in retirement. We know quite a lot about how to raise the incomes of low-paid workers." We are on a "break the bank" path that will end up reducing middle class wealth and wages if we do as Krugman implies, like the above economically troubled countries: UNLESS everyone is willing to live on less. How many free lunches are you getting?
1
"“Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.” "
The concept of Ms. Merkel
The concept of Ms. Merkel
1
Economic growth cannot happen without purchasing growth. After all, who can buy the products without purchasing power... money! From the middle class on down, purchasing power comes from the sale of labor to employers and small businesses as owners and employers. When the employed are in America, the purchasing power is in America. When it is moved overseas but sold here, America bleeds its' wealth and dies a death of a thousand cuts.
Capitalism requires ever expanding markets. From 16th <==> 18th century Mercantilism to the present day Chinese "capitalism", the search and acquisition of new markets has, and does, lead to military wars. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism )
Ms. Clinton's plans are modest attempts to reign in Republican's soft Mercantilism. Mr. Trump promotes his business acumen, and trumpets his brand of hard Mercantilism. Even the Republican party sees his policies as leading to trade wars.
Capitalism requires ever expanding markets. From 16th <==> 18th century Mercantilism to the present day Chinese "capitalism", the search and acquisition of new markets has, and does, lead to military wars. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism )
Ms. Clinton's plans are modest attempts to reign in Republican's soft Mercantilism. Mr. Trump promotes his business acumen, and trumpets his brand of hard Mercantilism. Even the Republican party sees his policies as leading to trade wars.
1
"... commentators try to dismiss Hillary Clinton's demise in the polls...". It seems to me that 99% of the commentators ( and I will include the alleged " journalists " who routinely violate the basic principles of journalism ) are blatantly pro- Clinton and anti-Trump. Where has he found all of these pro-Trump commentators ?
Once again, I think that that Mr. Krugman is a not an Economist, but a Philosopher and an Astronomer who observes life on Mars.
Once again, I think that that Mr. Krugman is a not an Economist, but a Philosopher and an Astronomer who observes life on Mars.
1
In his own best-known version of the prayer, Niebuhr prayed for the courage to change what should be changed. Just because a change is possible does not make it desirable.
My biggest fear is that by reaching out to Republicans to support her, Clinton's "much a center-left vision: incremental" economic vision can be incrementally moved a tad to the right in the name of political give and take. If Bernie moved her to the left, then why couldn't a few respected Republican move her to the right.
Trust is not Clinton's long suit, so if she starts giving ground, she could lose what little trust she has now. And lose the "Battle of the Blonds".
Trust is not Clinton's long suit, so if she starts giving ground, she could lose what little trust she has now. And lose the "Battle of the Blonds".
1
Economics is not a science. There are way too many unknowns and variables along with an inability to utilize any meaningful controls to provide repeatable predictable results. Economics is gender, race, colored, ethnic, sectarian, social, political and educational history plus arithmetic.
Economics is like law, history, finance and accounting. Thus neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump have any more economic "vision" than a fortune teller or soothsayer or a oracle. The Nobel Prize for Economics is a banking prize.
Wisdom, courage, humility and empathy for members of the one and only human race in their evolutionary DNA genetic biological quest for fat, salt, sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin is the mysterious reality that will make our tomorrow.
Economics is like law, history, finance and accounting. Thus neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump have any more economic "vision" than a fortune teller or soothsayer or a oracle. The Nobel Prize for Economics is a banking prize.
Wisdom, courage, humility and empathy for members of the one and only human race in their evolutionary DNA genetic biological quest for fat, salt, sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin is the mysterious reality that will make our tomorrow.
3
I would be happy if we could adopt just one of Senator Sander's ideas....a transaction tax on High Frequency Traders who contribute absolutely nothing to price discovery in the stock market.
1
If all of these brilliant ideas are changing color,
why didn't you support Bernie Sanders?
Seems he was a genius of simple economics.
The rich get richer,
the poor get poorer.
why didn't you support Bernie Sanders?
Seems he was a genius of simple economics.
The rich get richer,
the poor get poorer.
We'll get our potholes filled the day they put the Pentagon on a flash drive.
1
Productivity can not increase further when people already work two and more jobs .
Here in the Seattle area, construction is booming, but there seems to be a shortage of skilled labor. What is the remedy for that?
1
Dr. Krugman,
I was struck by your lead paragraph about alternatives to Mr. Trump possibly being able to compete against Hillary Clinton. Not possible. From the dreamy Dr. Carson to the severe Rick Santorum, and all the others in between, none were remotely acceptable. This was pointed out in a wonderful essay by Eliot Weinberger in the latest London Review of Books, "Why Did They Pick Trump?"
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/eliot-weinberger/they-could-have-picked
I was struck by your lead paragraph about alternatives to Mr. Trump possibly being able to compete against Hillary Clinton. Not possible. From the dreamy Dr. Carson to the severe Rick Santorum, and all the others in between, none were remotely acceptable. This was pointed out in a wonderful essay by Eliot Weinberger in the latest London Review of Books, "Why Did They Pick Trump?"
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/eliot-weinberger/they-could-have-picked
After reading you columns about kick-starting the US economy for a few years, with emphasis on low and lower interest rates in the absence of fiscal stimulus, you now have changed course. Perhaps you have read today's NYT editorial and changed your views. Perhaps you have become a flack for the Klinton Klan.
In any event, it is time that all economic and social policies begin to reflect the reality of slower overall economic growth rates, the need for greater attention to environmental preservation and redistributive socioeconomic policies, and perhaps accepting that the quality of one's life does not depend on the acquisition of more ... whatever.
In any event, it is time that all economic and social policies begin to reflect the reality of slower overall economic growth rates, the need for greater attention to environmental preservation and redistributive socioeconomic policies, and perhaps accepting that the quality of one's life does not depend on the acquisition of more ... whatever.
2
Well since her proposals have a very low probability of happening talking about them is foolish. Now if she got them the economy would slow down a lot as those with money don't spend it, and somewhat don't make it either. Say you are a doctor and you make say 6 million a year, why not take a break and make say 4 million since the government will steal such a large amount of your efforts.
2
Krugman has become such a predictable party hack, there is no sense in addressing the substance of his "ideas." There is no longer any reason to read his columns.
4
"When conservatives promise fantastic growth if we give them another chance at Bushonomics, one main reason is that they don’t want to admit how much they would have to cut popular programs to pay for their tax cuts."
Right here is where you're wrong. They have no intention of ACTUALLY cutting popular programs to pay for their tax cuts, whatever the rhetoric. Popular programs are popular for good reasons and even very bad politicians know better than to push too hard to "fix" them.
This is why the party of "fiscal responsibility" when tax-and-spend Democrats hold the reins of power become the party of "screw it, spend more and more" when borrow-and-spend Republicans are on top.
Right here is where you're wrong. They have no intention of ACTUALLY cutting popular programs to pay for their tax cuts, whatever the rhetoric. Popular programs are popular for good reasons and even very bad politicians know better than to push too hard to "fix" them.
This is why the party of "fiscal responsibility" when tax-and-spend Democrats hold the reins of power become the party of "screw it, spend more and more" when borrow-and-spend Republicans are on top.
"But there has also been a somewhat mysterious decline in labor force participation among prime-age adults and a sharp drop in productivity growth."
It's not really that mysterious to anyone who lost a job during the financial crisis or took a couple of years off to have babies or take care of an elderly parent. Most employers see employees is as a drag on their profits, not as partners in making those profits. Once you've been out of the workforce for a few months, you are seen as damaged goods, a bigger drain than the norm on the company. You might require a few extra hours training, you won't know about the latest system upgrade, you might not know about the new regulation that was just passed yesterday. Never mind that you may have a flawless work history, wisdom that comes only with experience; you are not wanted because none of that will make it through the online app screening process. What will make it through is that you've been out of commission for a few months, so you are out. God help you if you are over 50.
Until the disconnect between employers and the potential employee pool is solved, I don't see much hope for the labor force participation decline to ease off.
It's not really that mysterious to anyone who lost a job during the financial crisis or took a couple of years off to have babies or take care of an elderly parent. Most employers see employees is as a drag on their profits, not as partners in making those profits. Once you've been out of the workforce for a few months, you are seen as damaged goods, a bigger drain than the norm on the company. You might require a few extra hours training, you won't know about the latest system upgrade, you might not know about the new regulation that was just passed yesterday. Never mind that you may have a flawless work history, wisdom that comes only with experience; you are not wanted because none of that will make it through the online app screening process. What will make it through is that you've been out of commission for a few months, so you are out. God help you if you are over 50.
Until the disconnect between employers and the potential employee pool is solved, I don't see much hope for the labor force participation decline to ease off.
1
Answer to the final question in this article: yes. We can do that. And it will take serenity, sanity, and courage. Thank you for this colum mr. Kurgan. Hope in politics these days is desperately needed--and welcome. Let's try new things. Let's dare mighty things. Let's give respect, empathy, equality, justice, and Eco-sustainability our highest priority. The higher power will appreciate the effort.
Of course there's a sharp drop in productivity...
As companies begin to hire, their existing employees no longer have to work 50-60 hour weeks because they're afraid of losing their jobs. They can take vacations without fearing that they'll be labeled redundant while they're away. The productivity levels are merely returning to normal.
As companies begin to hire, their existing employees no longer have to work 50-60 hour weeks because they're afraid of losing their jobs. They can take vacations without fearing that they'll be labeled redundant while they're away. The productivity levels are merely returning to normal.
Infrastructure spending is essential. Perhaps borrow Roosevelt's New Deal idea of giving unemployed the option of working on teams that move across the country, working on park projects and civic development work.
Not a scant mention of the serenity prayers when Obama took helm of an economy that was nosediving and Obama used his bare shoulders to keep it afloat! Instead Krugman kept battering Obama, hammering his incremental moves, criticizing him when he was due for every bit of our support and encouragement. Who needs friends like Paul Krugman? Only belatedly did Paul learn to respect Obama.
"The Obama administration, which began in the midst of massive layoffs from the Great Recession, has presided over a job market turnaround. Overall employment is about 7 percent higher than when he took office."
"The Obama administration, which began in the midst of massive layoffs from the Great Recession, has presided over a job market turnaround. Overall employment is about 7 percent higher than when he took office."
1
If discussions pertaining to fiscal and budgetary choices, policies and analyses were focused on real world observations, behavioral outcomes and the facts of measured velocity, actual receipts and outlays, without injecting an ideology or "assumed" results into the mix, much more sensible and salubrious policy could result. Our approach is constantly one of winners
and losers, in the political sense, and a sort of "revenge" attitude that has rendered economics just another social science prone to rhetoric and ridicule. In short "plumbers" are needed rather than "architects". Leave the soapbox to the less impactful workings of government; monetary and fiscal policy is far too important in the modern world to be practiced like some parlor game.
and losers, in the political sense, and a sort of "revenge" attitude that has rendered economics just another social science prone to rhetoric and ridicule. In short "plumbers" are needed rather than "architects". Leave the soapbox to the less impactful workings of government; monetary and fiscal policy is far too important in the modern world to be practiced like some parlor game.
2
It's time to focus on the needs of the people, not just the rich who are probably the prime beneficiaries of any sort of "growth" focus.
To do this, focus on putting people back to work, focus on education so that they have the skills to work, and focus on rebuilding our in-shambles infrastructure so that they have something to work on.
We can let the big-brained boys figure out how to pay for it. But addressing the need is much more critical than worrying about who pays for it - we are losing a large part of the American people to poverty, joblessness and the lack of hope - and those three are a much more critical need than worrying about how much the citizenry ad a whole (and that includes the poor beleaguered 1%'ers) will pay for it.
To do this, focus on putting people back to work, focus on education so that they have the skills to work, and focus on rebuilding our in-shambles infrastructure so that they have something to work on.
We can let the big-brained boys figure out how to pay for it. But addressing the need is much more critical than worrying about who pays for it - we are losing a large part of the American people to poverty, joblessness and the lack of hope - and those three are a much more critical need than worrying about how much the citizenry ad a whole (and that includes the poor beleaguered 1%'ers) will pay for it.
" focus on education so that they have the skills to work, "
What good will that do for people who do not value education and go so far as to beat up those who do for "acting white". Here in NJ, special state funding allows inner-city schools to spend more per pupil than the most affluent suburbs, but the graduation rates and test scores of the inner city schools are still by far the lowest in the state.
What good will that do for people who do not value education and go so far as to beat up those who do for "acting white". Here in NJ, special state funding allows inner-city schools to spend more per pupil than the most affluent suburbs, but the graduation rates and test scores of the inner city schools are still by far the lowest in the state.
2
Don't get off the subject here. The need is to put the country back to work, doing meaningful work, while the needs of all of the citizens of the country are met - not just the rich and entitled.
(And whatever punditry and propaganda you are listening to - stop listening to it - it is designed to enrage you while distracting you from the real issues. It's also designed to be divisive and to encourage you to vote against your own best interests. Go find out for yourself what the real issues are - not what you bloviating politician wants you to think what they are.)
(And whatever punditry and propaganda you are listening to - stop listening to it - it is designed to enrage you while distracting you from the real issues. It's also designed to be divisive and to encourage you to vote against your own best interests. Go find out for yourself what the real issues are - not what you bloviating politician wants you to think what they are.)
This whole argument reminds me of the three bears tasting their porridge. One bowl is too hot, another too cold and the middle one just right. Of course this is a matter of opinion and past experience. But wouldn't it be good to find a path that wouldn't result in burning your tongue or having a lumpy mess.
Hillary Clinton has always been criticized from both the left and the right because she has sought the middle path and she would continue to be criticized if she veered left or right. Please let's give her a chance to find narrow way that will give us solid growth and take care of the needs of our middle class and poorest citizens, that challenges the rich to pay their fair share.
Hillary Clinton has always been criticized from both the left and the right because she has sought the middle path and she would continue to be criticized if she veered left or right. Please let's give her a chance to find narrow way that will give us solid growth and take care of the needs of our middle class and poorest citizens, that challenges the rich to pay their fair share.
1
The "mysterious decline in labor force participation" is due the surge in dubious disability claims occurring after the Republicans blocked the extension of unemployment benefits.
"..If the labor force participation rate, especially for prime working-age males ages 25-54, had followed its typical cyclical pattern, the unemployment rate would now be well above 5.0%. The headline U-3 unemployment only counts those actively seeking work as in the labor force and unemployed.
As we pointed out in "Disability's Disabling Impact On The Labor Market" http://seekingalpha.com/article/3342635 historically labor force participation has behaved cyclically. Participation tends to fall during recessions and rise during recoveries as job prospects improve. But in the current economic cycle the participation rate fell during the recession and continued falling throughout the recovery to date.
Dubious and fraudulent disability claims have vastly increased the number of those collecting disability with commensurate decreases in labor force participation and the unemployment rate. A segment on CBS "60 Minutes" last season quoted employees of the Social Security Administration and administrative law judges who asserted that lawyers are recruiting millions of people to make fraudulent disability claims. One such judge said "if the American public knew what was going on in our system half would be outraged and the other half would apply for benefits"..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3776156
"..If the labor force participation rate, especially for prime working-age males ages 25-54, had followed its typical cyclical pattern, the unemployment rate would now be well above 5.0%. The headline U-3 unemployment only counts those actively seeking work as in the labor force and unemployed.
As we pointed out in "Disability's Disabling Impact On The Labor Market" http://seekingalpha.com/article/3342635 historically labor force participation has behaved cyclically. Participation tends to fall during recessions and rise during recoveries as job prospects improve. But in the current economic cycle the participation rate fell during the recession and continued falling throughout the recovery to date.
Dubious and fraudulent disability claims have vastly increased the number of those collecting disability with commensurate decreases in labor force participation and the unemployment rate. A segment on CBS "60 Minutes" last season quoted employees of the Social Security Administration and administrative law judges who asserted that lawyers are recruiting millions of people to make fraudulent disability claims. One such judge said "if the American public knew what was going on in our system half would be outraged and the other half would apply for benefits"..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3776156
1
The major threats to our democracy are inheritance and non-competitive House districts. Hillary is not trying to do much about either.
She should be trying to end all huge inheritances like the one that gave us the Koch brothers, who have been using their money to undermine American democracy. And her plan to slightly increase capital gains taxes from half of earned income rates to 55% of what the rest of us pay is clearly not courageous or a big step towards fairness.
She should be talking about things like California's redistricting method, which is done by nonpartisan judges instead of by the state government in power. That state government, thanks to the Koch brothers' ALEC organization, is usually Republican even though Republicans are a minority in most states.
The Presidency is a bully pulpit. That means the President gets to talk about these things, even if action is not possible. We need words as well as timid half-actions.
To see what to do go to YouTube watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). We again have the chance to do something that is NOT timid. Let's not waste it again like Obama did. Invite me to speak, save America. Thanks. [email protected]
She should be trying to end all huge inheritances like the one that gave us the Koch brothers, who have been using their money to undermine American democracy. And her plan to slightly increase capital gains taxes from half of earned income rates to 55% of what the rest of us pay is clearly not courageous or a big step towards fairness.
She should be talking about things like California's redistricting method, which is done by nonpartisan judges instead of by the state government in power. That state government, thanks to the Koch brothers' ALEC organization, is usually Republican even though Republicans are a minority in most states.
The Presidency is a bully pulpit. That means the President gets to talk about these things, even if action is not possible. We need words as well as timid half-actions.
To see what to do go to YouTube watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). We again have the chance to do something that is NOT timid. Let's not waste it again like Obama did. Invite me to speak, save America. Thanks. [email protected]
3
People in the top income income brackets use more infrastructure, would benefit more from improved infrastructure, and it therefore isn't merely acceptable that they pay higher taxes to improve infrastructure, it is right and proper. They owe us and they need to do this.
A person with lots of resources to protect -- the top five percent income bracket -- "use" security and regulatory resources more than people without resources. Let's have a few bank runs just to illustrate this truism. Bank runs and currency collapses used to happen all the time, but a slew of regulatory agencies created in the Progressive and Depression eras reduced financial risk. The five percenters travel more, drive on roads more, fly more, etc, and need to pay for those imbalances. They also travel abroad more and need to pay more for the US military, who give them peace of mind, and the occasional projection of power. Simple things like clean water and a healthy environment for their workers enable five percenters to make money, and they need to pay for that.
The fact is that five percenters have been socializing risk and privatizing profits at least since 1980, and that is why we are here economically. Stop whining and pony up. No complaints, you had a good run.
As for the ambitious "just below five percenters" who will, no doubt, scream the loudest about this proposal because higher taxes impede their prospects, I say this: do your homework. Slow growth means you will not get there.
A person with lots of resources to protect -- the top five percent income bracket -- "use" security and regulatory resources more than people without resources. Let's have a few bank runs just to illustrate this truism. Bank runs and currency collapses used to happen all the time, but a slew of regulatory agencies created in the Progressive and Depression eras reduced financial risk. The five percenters travel more, drive on roads more, fly more, etc, and need to pay for those imbalances. They also travel abroad more and need to pay more for the US military, who give them peace of mind, and the occasional projection of power. Simple things like clean water and a healthy environment for their workers enable five percenters to make money, and they need to pay for that.
The fact is that five percenters have been socializing risk and privatizing profits at least since 1980, and that is why we are here economically. Stop whining and pony up. No complaints, you had a good run.
As for the ambitious "just below five percenters" who will, no doubt, scream the loudest about this proposal because higher taxes impede their prospects, I say this: do your homework. Slow growth means you will not get there.
2
George Bush showed us that poor decisions by a politician can tank the economy. However, despite what they might say, no politician can waive a magic wand and create outsize economic growth. If they could, somebody would have done it by now.
1
Outside the bubble, there is no mystery of why work force participation is low. There are far fewer decent jobs available. America literally shipped factories to China. Undocumented (or illegal, if you prefer) immigrants take low end jobs at wages Americans consider starvation.
Taxing the rich never works. They pay legislators for loopholes and exceptions. When Reagan was elected, then most popular middle class retailer, Sears had a tax avoidance desk.
What we must do is change the rules of engagement. For the last thirty years, capital has been increasingly rewarded, while labor has become cheaper. When this trend is reversed, the spending class will juice the economy. Raising minimum wage is a good start. Mandating labor representation on corporate boards (thank you, Germany) is another. Use the tax code to cap CEO pay at 40x, instead of 400x. Make executive payments in stock a corporate expense.
Bring back Eisenhower business ethics and economy. America sent the middle class to college for free and built superhighways. Union workers pay rose with productivity.
It is going to be hard to wrest our economy back from the oligarchs.
Taxing the rich never works. They pay legislators for loopholes and exceptions. When Reagan was elected, then most popular middle class retailer, Sears had a tax avoidance desk.
What we must do is change the rules of engagement. For the last thirty years, capital has been increasingly rewarded, while labor has become cheaper. When this trend is reversed, the spending class will juice the economy. Raising minimum wage is a good start. Mandating labor representation on corporate boards (thank you, Germany) is another. Use the tax code to cap CEO pay at 40x, instead of 400x. Make executive payments in stock a corporate expense.
Bring back Eisenhower business ethics and economy. America sent the middle class to college for free and built superhighways. Union workers pay rose with productivity.
It is going to be hard to wrest our economy back from the oligarchs.
11
The more the minimum wage is raised, the greater will be the incentive for companies and corporations to replace increasingly more expensive no-skill / low-skill minimum wage workers with increasingly less expensive and more efficient automation. The result will be fewer minimum wage jobs and increased unemployment for no-skill / low-skill workers.
2
It is a truth that Republican administrations run up the debt, the same debt they try to lay on the Democrats, and under Democratic administrations the debt goes down. American voters don't get this obviously. Clinton's economic plan will be typical for Democratic administrations, creating jobs, cleaning up the infrastructure, and creating some fairness in taxes. The rich, and these include the San Francisco Democrats, will whine and whine, but will still be richer than god, and as under Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama will actually get richer. Americans for odd reasons that Krugman has addressed over the years cannot see this.
1
Krugman is quite correct that there is no magic formula for long-term stimulation of economic growth. Piketty forecasts that global economic growth will slow to nearly zero % in the near future and he has good evidence for that forecast. We do need to move into a steady-state economy in the long run. It's a finite planet we live on, and while you may tell yourself that growth is necessary, Mother Nature does not agree. And she always bats last.
11
Well said. It is hard to think of any other domain in which persistent growth is regarded as a good or healthy phenomenon. In fact, none comes to mind. Maybe someone else could cite examples.
If we want a "steady state" economy, then we should consider deporting all of the 12+ million illegal aliens already in the US and not allow any more Central American or Syrian "refugees" to enter the country.
2
It made me happy to see you cite the need for "more infrastructure spending than Mrs. Clinton is currently proposing, and more borrowing to pay for it."
You were tentative that this "might" significantly boost growth. This gives me an opportunity to strongly suggest that we need to invest in much more efficient logistics or how we transport things to support consumption.
This is the 50th Anniversary of the invention of superconducting magnetic levitated transport by Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby and the testing and certification of this remarkable system is long, long overdue. Today, there will be a memorial service for Gordon Danby on Long Island at Wading River.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/science/gordon-t-danby-dies-at-86-help...
The continued development of this technology has the support of many who believe that carrying out the bi-partisan vision of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee first articulated in 1987 in legislation that passed the Senate but was stopped in the House in committee by strong opposition of transportation interests led by the airlines.
The vision stated by Senator Moynihan for the committee he chaired, which I later learned was an idea of Senator Reid of NV, was to use the rights-of-way of the Interstate Highways, that the public already owns as the backbone of a 300 mph Maglev network for both passengers & freight (see www.magneticglide.com for the concept).
You were tentative that this "might" significantly boost growth. This gives me an opportunity to strongly suggest that we need to invest in much more efficient logistics or how we transport things to support consumption.
This is the 50th Anniversary of the invention of superconducting magnetic levitated transport by Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby and the testing and certification of this remarkable system is long, long overdue. Today, there will be a memorial service for Gordon Danby on Long Island at Wading River.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/science/gordon-t-danby-dies-at-86-help...
The continued development of this technology has the support of many who believe that carrying out the bi-partisan vision of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee first articulated in 1987 in legislation that passed the Senate but was stopped in the House in committee by strong opposition of transportation interests led by the airlines.
The vision stated by Senator Moynihan for the committee he chaired, which I later learned was an idea of Senator Reid of NV, was to use the rights-of-way of the Interstate Highways, that the public already owns as the backbone of a 300 mph Maglev network for both passengers & freight (see www.magneticglide.com for the concept).
Of course the democrats want more infrastructure spending because they also demand that all of this work be limited to "prevailing wage" union workers who cost 25% more than their non-union counterparts but kickback most of their union dues to the democrats. So the more infrastructure spending the more union kickbacks to the democrats.
4
Of course, there *is* Donald Trump in 2016. And then, there were the other sixteen to which, if we add what the GOP had on-offer in 2012 and 2008, we could start our own right-wing nut house, operated under contract with a private provider, of course. Every year since 2008, we suggested that the GOP nomination sweepstakes could not possibly become any more bizarre. Wrong! Twice.
Still, Dr. Krugman gives short shrift to the weakness of the Hillary campaign. In the sharply unlikely event that the GOP were capable of presenting a candidate even brushing the margins of sanity, Clinton would indeed have a very steep hill to climb. Integrity is hardly a Clinton watchword. Whoever wins in November, we are exiting our days of Obama-esque grace. We shall long for those days all too soon.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Still, Dr. Krugman gives short shrift to the weakness of the Hillary campaign. In the sharply unlikely event that the GOP were capable of presenting a candidate even brushing the margins of sanity, Clinton would indeed have a very steep hill to climb. Integrity is hardly a Clinton watchword. Whoever wins in November, we are exiting our days of Obama-esque grace. We shall long for those days all too soon.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Hillary is promising a lot of things. I wonder what she is promising to all the companies and organizations who payed her big dollars for 20 minute speeches. What promises will she keeps to the American people? More refugees brought in? More undocumented workers made legal? Hopefully also more jobs.
6
Most of the 20th century experienced unprecedented GDP (and lifestyle) growth due to the introduction of such marvels like the railroad and refrigeration and plumbing and electricity. This is unlikely to be repeated and a long stretch of slow growth and productivity has settled in - along with an age of low-wage capitalism where real incomes stagnate or fall for most while spectacular gains are shifted to a few. A distribution of wealth is in order and Mrs. Clinton's plan, at least, points in that direction while the "trickle-down" canard remains the go-to plan in the GOP playbook. In this regard (and many others) I look forward to her election.
3
The growth of our GDP would be lower if not for immigration. Also Social Security would be further in the hole without immigration labor contributing to it. There would be fewer jobs without immigration labor. Those workers buy things and services that require more employment.
Where I am leading to is if you want to increase the growth of our GDP the best thing would be to encourage more immigration as the native population birthrate is in decline. This is something that the Republican base does not want. They think a strongman (Trump) can bash heads together and out of thin air pull it off. Why so many people want to be ruled by a strongman instead of ruling themselves is a mystery to me.
Where I am leading to is if you want to increase the growth of our GDP the best thing would be to encourage more immigration as the native population birthrate is in decline. This is something that the Republican base does not want. They think a strongman (Trump) can bash heads together and out of thin air pull it off. Why so many people want to be ruled by a strongman instead of ruling themselves is a mystery to me.
1
The missing ingredient is the analysis of the bubble cycle baked into the consequences of private equity in the 80's, subsequent off-shoring, out-sourcing, coupled with technology all of which has become globalism. The middlemen sold out the productive assets of the economy and replaced them with the bubbles made possible by a giant fraud recipe. A recipe that begins with perverse-short term incentives and made possible by deregulation, de-supervision, and decriminalization. The collapse of '08 was engineered and was the natural end to an unsustainable system, however we pumped free money into this criminal enterprise to prop up whatever comes next. Have you ever asked yourself if there was a correlation between the S&L debacle to the tech bubble to Enron, World Com, etc. culminating in '08? Its called accounting control fraud. While Manafort is a new take, who do we think funds our parties and why? Inconceivable...
isn't the best way to increase growth to try to create some real amount of inflation? Say get to the rates the fed is committed to?
Professor Krugman states that, "in particular, (he would like to see) substantially more infrastructure spending than Mrs. Clinton is currently proposing, and more borrowing to pay for it. This might significantly boost growth. But it would be unwise to count on it."
Of course you can't count on it, because Ms Clinton's vision is so limited. But there was a candidate who had the courage and the vision to do exactly what Professor Krugman says is needed: Bernie Sanders. But Krugman savaged Senator Sanders throughout the primary season.
Again, Professor, any regrets?
Of course you can't count on it, because Ms Clinton's vision is so limited. But there was a candidate who had the courage and the vision to do exactly what Professor Krugman says is needed: Bernie Sanders. But Krugman savaged Senator Sanders throughout the primary season.
Again, Professor, any regrets?
4
Neither Krugman nor anyone else can point to a single substantive accomplishment that Hillary Clinton achieved during her years of "service" other than lining her own pockets. No sane person expects any more out of her in the future.
5
It's a false equivalence to set Marco Rubio's “Obama is deliberately undermining America” beside Trump’s “Obama and Hillary are the founders of ISIS.” On the one hand, Rubio was certainly not joking or being sarcastic. But on the other, what Rubio meant was obviously that Obama was undermining America “as we—meaning the people Rubio was appealing to—have always known and loved her.”No one took Rubio to mean “Obama is deliberately trying to burn down our farms and factories and reduce our cities to rubble.”
"I’d argue, in particular, for substantially more infrastructure spending than Mrs. Clinton is currently proposing, and more borrowing to pay for it."
Well, Doc, this is what we have now. This is what we've always had. And thanks to the work done by you and other pundits, this is what we will always have to look forward to in the future with establishment candidates running the show - and with establishment propogandists such as yourself running interference for them.
Well, Doc, this is what we have now. This is what we've always had. And thanks to the work done by you and other pundits, this is what we will always have to look forward to in the future with establishment candidates running the show - and with establishment propogandists such as yourself running interference for them.
3
Fiscal conservatives will always say we cannot build the infrastructure needed by the next generation. But if we don't, it will not be there when they need it. If done wisely it will pay us all back many times. And hey, guess what, the next generation will pay for it anyway. They won't mind though, because it will be paying for itself!
why not just work some deal to repatriate the $2 trillion off-shore corporate dollars into infrastructure bonds?
2
Stop with the unsupportable claims. Be Boy Scout honest with the voting public. Paul ends with "Wouldn't it be great if that kind of policy honesty became the norm?" But then "politician" would no longer be a synonym for "liar." Lambs will lie down with lions before Republicans and Democrats will agree on which horizon the sun rises.
1
I do like to remind people that in 2012 Mitt Romney pledged to get the unemployment rate down to 6% by the end of his first term. Dodged a bullet there!
Imagine how Republicans would be crowing were Romney president and the unemployment rate down to 6%. Of course, that would have been quite an achievement without an automobile industry.
Republicans don't know much about history.
Imagine how Republicans would be crowing were Romney president and the unemployment rate down to 6%. Of course, that would have been quite an achievement without an automobile industry.
Republicans don't know much about history.
3
Paul asks: "Should accelerating U.S. economic growth be a bigger priority?" His answer is "focus upon things we actually know how to do." He further restricts this answer to "Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I'll pay for them."
For an academic, this is an amazingly unadventurous agenda. With this point of view we would never have gotten to the control of fire, never mind the internet.
For an academic, this is an amazingly unadventurous agenda. With this point of view we would never have gotten to the control of fire, never mind the internet.
1
Krugman is the most realistic of the people writing today about the economic and politics. Most of the material one reads in the media--including the NYTY is pure gobbledegook, including gross speculation that is shown to be nonsense the next day. Hillary Clinton is a candidate that has all the faults of politicians, but we have created them in our own image. It is clear now, and has been for a long time, that the concerns of the populace are the economy and the Supreme Court; it was not until there w3as a poll showing these concerns that the media even mentioned them. All the nonsense about negatives and trust that we were inundated with will now give way to the discussions about real issues and the enormous stake rational people have in this election.
Mr. Krugman, I expect more from a Nobel laureate when it comes to macro-economic policy. You mention infrastructure spending, which would indeed boost growth and be a good investment to boot. But you don't prescribe any policy for ratcheting up the potential for long-term growth.
So let me help you out. As Thomas Pikkety notes, the structural problem with our economy is the concentration of wealth in the hands of capital owners. We need economic policies that encourage the wealthy to either spend or invest that wealth in productive assets. Right now, much of it is driving the Wall Street machine, and very few are benefiting. Certainly some redistribution through more progressive taxes is in order. What else can we do?
As one of Ms. Clinton's strongest supporters, you may even find yourself in a position of influence in a Clinton administration. Can you get a head start on this by prescribing some ideas? Or are you too concerned about rocking the boat of the centrist-right electorate that will no doubt vote for Hillary? The time to speak is now.
So let me help you out. As Thomas Pikkety notes, the structural problem with our economy is the concentration of wealth in the hands of capital owners. We need economic policies that encourage the wealthy to either spend or invest that wealth in productive assets. Right now, much of it is driving the Wall Street machine, and very few are benefiting. Certainly some redistribution through more progressive taxes is in order. What else can we do?
As one of Ms. Clinton's strongest supporters, you may even find yourself in a position of influence in a Clinton administration. Can you get a head start on this by prescribing some ideas? Or are you too concerned about rocking the boat of the centrist-right electorate that will no doubt vote for Hillary? The time to speak is now.
3
Appropriate infrastructure spending isn't simply a boon to economic growth, it is an essential element of civil life in its own right; a failure to maintain does not go unnoticed. That the USA is so far behind in appropriate levels of such spending is both a metaphor for and a fact that helps explain the decline in national temper; a sense of decline physically experienced daily.
"Civilization is a place to hang the broom." ~Eric Hoffer (attributed)
"Civilization is a place to hang the broom." ~Eric Hoffer (attributed)
2
Of course any other GOP candidate would have the same nonsense trickle-down talking points, but almost any of them would have run a better campaign. I.e., he would have stuck to attacking Clinton, not his own party, disabled reporters, Gold Star families, the media, NATO, the constitution, etc. And since Clinton's own favorability numbers are quite bad, it likely would have been a much tighter race. Instead the GOP nominated a 70-yr-old infant with enormous psychological problems, running a campaign that cannot reliably be differentiated from attempted political suicide. So we dodged a bullet there.
3
With regard to the slowdown in productivity, I'm sensing a shift in work culture. The productivity increases of the past were very much dependent on the willingness of workers to give that little extra (oftentimes a lot extra) time and effort for no extra pay. After having experienced the quick to fire, slow to hire policies of employers during the great recession, many workers, I believe, are loathe to give any extra time without being paid for it. They're just tired of being taken advantage of, especially when their employers show no loyalty to them when times get rough.
The stories of business owners sacrificing their own savings to keep his employees on the payroll during tough times may have been true in days of yore, but we see little of that in the corporate owned, investor controlled culture of business today.
The stories of business owners sacrificing their own savings to keep his employees on the payroll during tough times may have been true in days of yore, but we see little of that in the corporate owned, investor controlled culture of business today.
5
"Wouldn’t it be great if that kind of policy honesty became the norm?" I'd agree that such honesty would be refreshing. In particular, perhaps Krugman wants to point out the lie that liberals offer when talking about wanting to be more like the "democratic socilaists" of Europe with their high government benefits. It's true that Europeans have higher benefits - but the key is that everyone (including the poor) pay very high taxes for it.
In Denmark, as an example. even the poor pay a 25% VAT and an income tax starting at 35%.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/16/9544007/denmark-nordic-model
By contrast, the US is much closer to the Bolshevik Revolution than European Socialism. The rich pay 5x as much in taxes as they receive in benefits while the bottom 40% receive 7x to 40x as much as they pay in taxes.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-tra...
When does this stop ? I applaud Krugman for finally acknowledging that liberals do not know how to increase economic growth. Again, I'd encourage such honesty from Hillary as well. In the end, much of the "real issues that divided us politically" are about objectives. Liberals are basically abdicating any responsibility for promoting economic growth and instead believe that government should focus solely on "distribution and fairness". Interestingly, the Great Depression was one of the greatest times of equality in America. Is that really what we want ?
In Denmark, as an example. even the poor pay a 25% VAT and an income tax starting at 35%.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/16/9544007/denmark-nordic-model
By contrast, the US is much closer to the Bolshevik Revolution than European Socialism. The rich pay 5x as much in taxes as they receive in benefits while the bottom 40% receive 7x to 40x as much as they pay in taxes.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-tra...
When does this stop ? I applaud Krugman for finally acknowledging that liberals do not know how to increase economic growth. Again, I'd encourage such honesty from Hillary as well. In the end, much of the "real issues that divided us politically" are about objectives. Liberals are basically abdicating any responsibility for promoting economic growth and instead believe that government should focus solely on "distribution and fairness". Interestingly, the Great Depression was one of the greatest times of equality in America. Is that really what we want ?
4
"Mrs. Clinton’s economic vision, which she summarized last week. It’s very much a center-left vision: incremental but fairly large increases in high-income tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety net."
Yes, but because it was Mrs.Clinton, few accept her "vision." They're stuck on seeing her as a compulsive liar, with no ideals or scruples. For them she's a wonk with no finesse. Let us face it, she, as Bill, I believe is a poor liar. She knows this, I think, one reason for her insularity & paranoia. She is much more forceful than Bill, but a very poor communicator, unfortunately. When I hear other women politicians, I always think, if she were nearly as good as Diane Feinstein, or as good as Ms. Fiorina, how good she could have been? But she's she, eloquent & forceful, but uses the wrong words & phrases. Her facial expression often is repulsive. What can you do? She's what she's.
Yes, but because it was Mrs.Clinton, few accept her "vision." They're stuck on seeing her as a compulsive liar, with no ideals or scruples. For them she's a wonk with no finesse. Let us face it, she, as Bill, I believe is a poor liar. She knows this, I think, one reason for her insularity & paranoia. She is much more forceful than Bill, but a very poor communicator, unfortunately. When I hear other women politicians, I always think, if she were nearly as good as Diane Feinstein, or as good as Ms. Fiorina, how good she could have been? But she's she, eloquent & forceful, but uses the wrong words & phrases. Her facial expression often is repulsive. What can you do? She's what she's.
2
Infrastructure upgrades have always been the sensible path to economic growth. But the republican congress has repeatedly said no - why would they want to boost the Obama economy and make him look good? They will probably be the same way to Hillary unless we can pull the senate to democrat majority.
7
Why should the GOP say yes to more infrastructure spending as long as the democrats demand that all of the work be done by union members who will kickback most of their union dues to the democrats? The more infrastructure spending the more union kickbacks to the democrats.
1
Re the last paragraph: Yes it would be great, truly outstanding. Unfortunately it's pointless to speak in complete sentences, let along paragraphs, in our society. When HRC gave her infamous speech to coal miners in WVA, the complete statement was:
“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim? And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people,” Clinton said.
People who read and think in complete paragraphs take this as a statement of an affirmative policy of minimizing the effects to people involved in coal production of moving away from coal. Economic considerations ( natural gas is cheaper than coal) and environmental considerations (natural gas is cleaner than coal) are what are closing coal mines. HRC was promising to minimize the economic impact to coal miners. She was excoriated for promising to close coal mines, which wasn't what she said.
“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim? And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people,” Clinton said.
People who read and think in complete paragraphs take this as a statement of an affirmative policy of minimizing the effects to people involved in coal production of moving away from coal. Economic considerations ( natural gas is cheaper than coal) and environmental considerations (natural gas is cleaner than coal) are what are closing coal mines. HRC was promising to minimize the economic impact to coal miners. She was excoriated for promising to close coal mines, which wasn't what she said.
3
"But there has also been a somewhat mysterious decline in labor force participation among prime-age adults and a sharp drop in productivity growth". You cannot participate in the labor force if there isn't a job available. Lack of employment opportunities still plague this country and other countries as well. The bottom line is an economy cannot grow if people do not have jobs. Right now, buying power is being curtailed and thus the driving engine of the economy is being throttled. If I cannot buy from you, then you cannot buy from someone else, and the dominoes fall. Rebuilding our infrastructure is a good place to start with trying to boost employment, also funding research in all scientific areas is another place where funding would help boost job opportunities. Our Space Program was wonderful in that respect. It gave us national pride, and boosted employment. It also advanced our knowledge in many areas. You have to start someplace. Large corporations are of little help, because they are going to go where the cheapest labor force can be found or import the cheapest labor to suit its purposes. That is a hindrance to productivity in this country, that has no easy solution. Cutting the tax loopholes afforded them would help to fill our coffers, however.
One other thing. Require Social Security taxes to be paid all year as lower wage earners have to do. This is equitable and a modest tax increase, and it would also help Clinton to pay for what she promises.
One other thing. Require Social Security taxes to be paid all year as lower wage earners have to do. This is equitable and a modest tax increase, and it would also help Clinton to pay for what she promises.
A good place to start, as the column suggests, is with spending on infrastructure--roads, bridges, the electric grid, the air-traffic control system, preparing for rising sea levels, etc., etc. Not only would spending in these critical and too-long neglected areas grow the GDP, the job growth would have a true trickle-down effect on the rest of the economy. Think, for example, of all the industries and services that support road construction: machinery, fuels, materials, insurance, worker housing and support. And, in the end, we'd have something useful and beneficial for our expenditures.
My aunt Dot who worked in a bank in the 50's used to say one of the only sure things in life is that the rich will get richer. I believe that no matter the tax policy we create the rich will end up being o k even if they reduce their net by a small percentage. The people on the other end of the money spectrum pay a more sever price with regressive tax policy ( even when given misleading names like "the fair tax").
I want politicians to witness the poverty in our country and change the things we can change. If the people at the top get a slightly lower net worth security blanket so be it.
Universal health care, better education, food security, clean and safe environment, are things we can change. Judging by our national net worth we can afford these changes.
"When they go low, we go high" should be a motto progressive politicians should aim for.
I want politicians to witness the poverty in our country and change the things we can change. If the people at the top get a slightly lower net worth security blanket so be it.
Universal health care, better education, food security, clean and safe environment, are things we can change. Judging by our national net worth we can afford these changes.
"When they go low, we go high" should be a motto progressive politicians should aim for.
2
Though it was horrible, we did get out of the Depression with a war which is not likely to be replicated given technology and the rise of religious fundamentalism as the enemy (rather than a state actor.) Our infrastructure is an embarrassment and does impede growth. Massive infrastructure spending might get through if it's spread out enough for individual representatives to take home the bacon and work if it leads to wide-spread use of new technology (always the basis of growth spurts). We know what the tired Republican platform will give us. And, what Democratic policies from the 16 years of Clinton and Obama have produced. Income and opportunity inequality is the roadblock that keeps the less xenophobic branch of the Trump coalition from jumping ship. While Clinton has been promoting this I don't think it getting through. In this climate, it doesn't have to sound so 'lefty' that it will turn off moderates. I would like to see her separate herself from Obama and talk about this as a national economic and moral crises in her own words.
The decline in labor force participation is less mysterious when you consider that not only have wages been stagnant for decades, but there is a twin force of negativity in the employment market- a proliferation of half-jobs, and employers who are looking for unicorn employees.
As to the half-jobs, these are the part time, low wage, no benefit jobs which have grown over the past eight years. This includes jobs like Uber, Air BnB, and the like, which our media has given the cutesy term of "sharing economy". These kinds of jobs are incredibly exploitative, and highly unstable. But some Silicon Valley "genius" is raking it in, so who cares, right?
The second is what I call the search for the "unicorn" candidate. Corporations have a job opening, but won't hire anyone but the absolutely perfect candidate, despite the overwhelming number of qualified applicants. As corporations have never been more flush with cash (since they don't appear to be in any hurry to act as "job creators") what's the rush?
I don't want to get on a tiresome, generational slant here, but those who have been working for decades, and have built a stronger foundation, are often less desperate and strained than people in their thirties and younger. Their urgency may be less palpable, and that's a problem.
Incrementalism and modesty don't help when you're drowning. I understand that politics is the "art of the possible", but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be as bold as possible with our mandate.
As to the half-jobs, these are the part time, low wage, no benefit jobs which have grown over the past eight years. This includes jobs like Uber, Air BnB, and the like, which our media has given the cutesy term of "sharing economy". These kinds of jobs are incredibly exploitative, and highly unstable. But some Silicon Valley "genius" is raking it in, so who cares, right?
The second is what I call the search for the "unicorn" candidate. Corporations have a job opening, but won't hire anyone but the absolutely perfect candidate, despite the overwhelming number of qualified applicants. As corporations have never been more flush with cash (since they don't appear to be in any hurry to act as "job creators") what's the rush?
I don't want to get on a tiresome, generational slant here, but those who have been working for decades, and have built a stronger foundation, are often less desperate and strained than people in their thirties and younger. Their urgency may be less palpable, and that's a problem.
Incrementalism and modesty don't help when you're drowning. I understand that politics is the "art of the possible", but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be as bold as possible with our mandate.
2
A few fundamental obstacles, or "speed bumps" on the way back to economic vibrancy. The private financial system doesn't want competition from the government in terms of money creation and direct spending and urban planning, other than tax breaks and hiring big contractors for highway projects. The middleman doesn't want to be cut out. Second, citizens of the vast rural interior bridle at the idea of having to pay to rebuild the decrepit East, even though that fear isn't necessarily justified. Third, replacing infrastructure may not employ a huge number of Americans: it's not a pick and shovel business anymore, and foreign contractors may get a big chunk of the business. Fourth, if the Democrats don't take back the House, getting Congress to appropriate money for anything but more war will be difficult.
3
" Third, replacing infrastructure may not employ a huge number of Americans: it's not a pick and shovel business anymore, and foreign contractors may get a big chunk of the business."
Exactly, didn't a Chinese company get the contract to supply all of the steel for one of the new San Francisco Bay bridges?
Exactly, didn't a Chinese company get the contract to supply all of the steel for one of the new San Francisco Bay bridges?
1
The best thing about infrastructure spending is that all the money goes to union workers. Union workers share their dues with politicians and support Democrats. Union workers may not be highly educated but they are well compensated. Unions like to tax profits as much as they dislike non-union workers.
The best thing about union workers is that they are naive and will actually vote for the candidate that promises to shower the most money on them. Clinton will spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure and Trump says he will spend more. Krugman apparently thinks Trump is right but may not actually believe him. I doubt he believes Clinton either because new presidential spending is just political “fantasy football”.
Most of the infrastructure projects would be no more necessary than a beautiful expansion of the wall along the southern border. Perhaps we should invite the state governors to submit a list of urgent or necessary infrastructure projects that they have failed to accomplish. The local state voters may be surprised. Congress can then ask why federal taxpayers should pay for local projects and see which states would get a windfall.
The best thing about union workers is that they are naive and will actually vote for the candidate that promises to shower the most money on them. Clinton will spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure and Trump says he will spend more. Krugman apparently thinks Trump is right but may not actually believe him. I doubt he believes Clinton either because new presidential spending is just political “fantasy football”.
Most of the infrastructure projects would be no more necessary than a beautiful expansion of the wall along the southern border. Perhaps we should invite the state governors to submit a list of urgent or necessary infrastructure projects that they have failed to accomplish. The local state voters may be surprised. Congress can then ask why federal taxpayers should pay for local projects and see which states would get a windfall.
3
Speaking of GDP, I don't understand why GDP is taken as a measure of how well the economy is doing when the wealth is going to and clogged at the top and millions of Americans' economic situation has been stagnating or declining. In a situation of rising inequality, GDP is misleading. Yes GDP-wise we may be the wealthiest nation in the world, but GDP is no reflection of the economic well being of a society--as in people.
Why don't we use the Gini Index (a measure of the dispersion of wealth) or how about the OECD's measure of quality of life and happiness in societies?
The GDP and the stock market may be up, but the people are down. What is wrong with that picture?
Why don't we use the Gini Index (a measure of the dispersion of wealth) or how about the OECD's measure of quality of life and happiness in societies?
The GDP and the stock market may be up, but the people are down. What is wrong with that picture?
2
There is a majority out there, present even in the Democratic party, who are not satisfied with minor variations on the status quo. Candidates who have no proposals to alter that status quo are, by definition, fighting the majority opinion, which is not a good political place to be. It is reasonable and appropriate to ask a candidate for national office to have plans and policies for addressing low productivity and low rates of employment among working age Americans. While I understand that academia does not have well-packaged answers for why these trends are happening and what to do about it, there are a lot of ideas out there. If we're not sure, a big program spending 100s of billions of dollars to fix things is not justified, but we should at least be trying a series of pilot projects, and doing things, like repairing our infrastructure, which need doing anyway and may have a secondary impact on the productivity or employment puzzle.
Being resigned and world weary may be appropriate in an old academic, but indicates a lack of ideas and vigor in a political candidate.
Being resigned and world weary may be appropriate in an old academic, but indicates a lack of ideas and vigor in a political candidate.
2
The benefits of repairing / replacing our crumbling drinking water, waste water, power distribution, transportation, etc infrastructures are obvious to any sane and honest person. The fact that we can finance these needed projects at incredibly low rates makes it imperative that we act now.
2
"Growth was pretty stable from 1970 to 2000 .. he subsequent slide began under George W. Bush and continued under Mr. Obama"
It's when globalization reached the point to impact wages in the US
From that point on, wages, in real dollars, went stagnant in the US but rose in China. How difficult is to see that the US economy can not grow unless US wages grow ?
Wages that are nailed down by competition with low wage countries ?
Mr. Krugman , a relentless promoter of globalization , failed to foresee the consequences .
It's when globalization reached the point to impact wages in the US
From that point on, wages, in real dollars, went stagnant in the US but rose in China. How difficult is to see that the US economy can not grow unless US wages grow ?
Wages that are nailed down by competition with low wage countries ?
Mr. Krugman , a relentless promoter of globalization , failed to foresee the consequences .
6
Millions of middle class jobs in the service industry has been outsourced to customers right here in the good old USA. When was the last time you called a travel agent to book a flight, rent a car and hotel? I suspect the next time you go to Amazon you will be checking yourself out. I know the next time I'm in Safeway I won't be going through a checkout island with a cashier. By the way my car, built in South Carolina was welded and painted by a robot.
2
Things I learned in Econ 201: Resources fall into four basic categories:
Land - anything that is in fixed supply, like . . . land area and the physical resources tied to it;
Labor - physical and intellectual human resources that can produce goods and services;
Capital - primarily physical plant and equipment, including infrastructure; and,
Entrepreneurial ability - the skill/craft that can combine the other three categories of resources to satisfy human wants and generate profits.
Land is made more productive through technologies: architecture and materials science build hundreds of offices on an acre; farming techniques and tools; extraction technologies; etc.
Labor is made more productive through education and improved tools and techniques, but also labor-saving technologies that reduce drudgery.
Capital is made more productive by new technologies and positive net investment in response to a favorable interest rate return.
Entrepreneurial ability is inspired or restrained by opportunities often limited by regulations.
Investment in engineering and infrastructure will increase the productivity of land; investment in education and technologies will improve the productivity of labor; investment in productive capacity and supporting infrastructure builds a strong economic foundation; entrepreneurs need rational, consistent laws and regulations to thrive.
I don't understand why there is a mystery surrounding how to increase the economic growth rate. I learned how in Econ 201.
Land - anything that is in fixed supply, like . . . land area and the physical resources tied to it;
Labor - physical and intellectual human resources that can produce goods and services;
Capital - primarily physical plant and equipment, including infrastructure; and,
Entrepreneurial ability - the skill/craft that can combine the other three categories of resources to satisfy human wants and generate profits.
Land is made more productive through technologies: architecture and materials science build hundreds of offices on an acre; farming techniques and tools; extraction technologies; etc.
Labor is made more productive through education and improved tools and techniques, but also labor-saving technologies that reduce drudgery.
Capital is made more productive by new technologies and positive net investment in response to a favorable interest rate return.
Entrepreneurial ability is inspired or restrained by opportunities often limited by regulations.
Investment in engineering and infrastructure will increase the productivity of land; investment in education and technologies will improve the productivity of labor; investment in productive capacity and supporting infrastructure builds a strong economic foundation; entrepreneurs need rational, consistent laws and regulations to thrive.
I don't understand why there is a mystery surrounding how to increase the economic growth rate. I learned how in Econ 201.
"Land - anything that is in fixed supply, like . . . land area and the physical resources tied to it;"
Try telling that to the Chinese who are building artificial islands on top of reefs and shoals in the South China Sea.
Try telling that to the Chinese who are building artificial islands on top of reefs and shoals in the South China Sea.
1
Common sense in our political shenanigans seems to have left us, in search of greener pastures. Big-mouth crooked lying Trump is not that different from its adoptive parents, the republican party, abundant in impossible promises, unless you count their enthusiastic and unabashed support for cutting taxes for the 'rich and powerful'. The G.O.P.'s rigid ideology has been obstructing the way to see our reality, and what needs to be done, in spite of our limitations in time and treasure, by seizing opportunities readily available to us (i.e. extremely low interests to borrow capital, and a thriving technology unimagined until recently, and an alternate system to educate and prepare workers on-site, hands-on, if only we would cooperate with each other...instead of the obstructionism that spoils everything, especially suicidal for those predicating it. Trump, an extremely ignorant and prejudiced individual, would ruin everything, trash the country while benefitting personally. Hillary, as flawed as she may be, knows what she is talking about; and, if we the people remain activists in verifying her promises, a bright future may yet surprise us.
Yes, it would be great having an honest policy such as paying for what government provides. New Jersey Governor Jim Florio dared to do this over a quarter century ago, raising taxes to fund expenditures, and was voted out of office while spawning a local talk radio station dedicated to the anti-tax hypocracy of the right.
Unfortunately subsequent governors misled the electorate on promoting supply side, kick the can down the road, voodoo economics. As a result, New Jersey is in a serious fiscal mess.
Unfortunately subsequent governors misled the electorate on promoting supply side, kick the can down the road, voodoo economics. As a result, New Jersey is in a serious fiscal mess.
3
Republicans are willing to go into bankruptcy as long as they can spend it on new weapons, new atomic submarines, unnecessary military bases, huge tax loopholes for the wealthy, extravagant write-offs for corporations, price protection for big pharma, depreciation on real-estate while it rises in value,
(like getting depreciation on a Stradaverius). But when a program that benefits the people on the lower economic scale, all sorts of alarm bells go off and they get "deficitisis", a virulent conditions that affects the power of reason.
No economist I, but one thing I know for sure is, make possible for people to have resources, they will buy goods which require workers to produce them which make profit for the makers of the products. Everything else is posturing.
(like getting depreciation on a Stradaverius). But when a program that benefits the people on the lower economic scale, all sorts of alarm bells go off and they get "deficitisis", a virulent conditions that affects the power of reason.
No economist I, but one thing I know for sure is, make possible for people to have resources, they will buy goods which require workers to produce them which make profit for the makers of the products. Everything else is posturing.
6
While I agree with this column, we need to realize that proposing a realistic and optimistic plan instead of a more ambitious plan is a very smart move by Clinton. If a part of the proposed plan is not fully paid for, then that part will be wildly amplified, ridiculed, and used to dismiss the entire plan as unrealistic by sections of the media. Now the pundits with Clinton Derangement Syndrome will only get to say that the current plan is not very ambitious.
In my corner of the economy an increase in productivity meant picking up the work of an employee who had retired, been downsized or shifted to another department. And this was never accompanied by a pay increase as all the productivity gains went to the stockholders. I had heard about this through all sectors of the economy. So if productivity gains were never shared then why would they be shared now? It may also explain why labor force participation is dropping off. Why work your self miserable when the pay is lousy.
9
Socialist Europe with high taxes and regulation is doing worse then the US. I would argue that the money the US has wasted on unnecessary wars since the end of WW2 has added to inflation, reduced investment in infrastructure, killed off or injured thousands of otherwise productive people who would be adding to our economy instead of being burdens on it.
It's time to rebuild this country and export peace to the world. I suspect that the payback would be enormous.
I don't trust either war monger Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to actually do this.
It's time to rebuild this country and export peace to the world. I suspect that the payback would be enormous.
I don't trust either war monger Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to actually do this.
4
Here's what we need to hear and to experience in America. An economy that is not slanted towards the one percent. A job market that has jobs that pay living wages, jobs that are not outsourced, employers who will look at all applicants and their skills rather than their age or their cost. Health care that is accessible for all and affordable for all. Affordable housing instead of McMansions, luxury this and luxury that. The feeling that we, the middle and working classes are more than widgets to be tossed aside after employers use us up.
12
Private investment seeks a return; public investment seeks 'common good.' Jobs created in the private sector can be sustaining; in the public sector, once a bridge is built, the job goes away. Public debt doubled under Obama surpassing GDP. If HC doubles it again, America would be $40T owing. When would PK be concerned?
2
Public sector jobs do not necessarily go away. Typically that bridge built with public money is built by workers hired by a private company, which also builds buildings (and those jobs "end" when the building is completed) but then there is maintenance and rebuilding when the bridge finally wears out. If the scheduling is done correctly, workers go from building one bridge to building another (new or replacement) as the general economy grows or changes.
Then there is the education of the country's children: as long as babies are born, there will be more children to educate, and that education has to be better for the new economic needs of the populace as the economy grows.
Public jobs are just as durable as private sector jobs.
Then there is the education of the country's children: as long as babies are born, there will be more children to educate, and that education has to be better for the new economic needs of the populace as the economy grows.
Public jobs are just as durable as private sector jobs.
You have described a Ponzi scheme where today's government jobs can only be sustained by tomorrow's tax dollars. Nothing is grown--only transferred. Public jobs are only as durable as the tax dollars paying for them. The tax dollars all come from private sector wealth and productivity unless you are suggesting that taxes from public sector workers can somehow self-sustain salaries. Your concept envisions and ever enlarging government commitment which means ever enlarging tax revenues and ever enlarging debt. This WILL reach a limit and collapse.
I've been wondering if the focus on growth is misplaced. Could it be that the carrying capacity of the earth, from which all economic benefits ultimately derive, has been approached and we now need to learn to make life better without economic growth? I know that this topic has been brought up by Thomas Malthus in the past and the limits keep moving higher? Could you please explain why we need to have growth in order to have better lives?
9
I think you misunderstand what goes into calculations of economic activity. All transactions between individuals and companies, etc., are put in monetary equivalent terms, which get added into the economy. So if the lives of people are to continue to be active, or the number of people stay the same or grow, the economies of the world will have to grow.
But what those economic activities do to the sustainability of the world's life-giving properties is what is important. How the energy that is required to live on earth is obtained is critically important, as is how the food humans eat is obtained. This is where the concentration on sustainability needs to be focused, not on economic growth.
But what those economic activities do to the sustainability of the world's life-giving properties is what is important. How the energy that is required to live on earth is obtained is critically important, as is how the food humans eat is obtained. This is where the concentration on sustainability needs to be focused, not on economic growth.
1
Politicians have to tell their their constituencies what they want to hear to get elected. So when people wax indignant that politicians lie, they have only themselves to blame: they are told lies because they cannot handle the truth. And the truth is that we are undergoing a technological and economic upheaval similar to the Industrial Revolution; and as with the Industrial Revolution, progress for humanity will mean setbacks for individuals. Trade is not going to be scaled back, nor should it. Global trade and capitalism are lifting millions out of poverty all over the world - and devastating the American Rust Belt. Technology is making our lives more interesting and exciting - and increasing inequality. Advances in medicine allow us to live longer - and raising the costs of health care. But trying to turn time back and "make America great again" or resurrect socialism will result in untold misery, economic devastation and technological regression. I know Hillary cannot tell the blue-collar workers and supermarket cashiers that they are going to be left behind if they do not educate themselves and find a way to become more flexible and marketable. But I am not a politician; so I can say to those who claim they have a magic formula for "making the economy work for everybody": you lie.
1
You are correct in most of what you say at the top level.
But as we all benefit from the growth that leaves some behind, we owe those people some (a lot of) help in developing new skills for the new jobs that will come in the new improved economy.
But as we all benefit from the growth that leaves some behind, we owe those people some (a lot of) help in developing new skills for the new jobs that will come in the new improved economy.
I find it truly saddening that many commenters here, and Krugman himself, think that income and wealth are and should be doled out and directed by government, as if government is its true owner. It's not. Progressive taxation, not to mention the many other distortions in the tax code, no matter who receives the benefit, is an abomination. The estate tax, nothing more than a vile intrusion into the family by government, should be abolished as morally wrong. The only fair tax is a flat tax. If some do better than others and amass wealth, I say fantastic. And good for them for living the American Dream.
2
These international free-trade pacts we hear so much about may be one of the primary causes of the pessimism about long-term growth.
These trade pacts, particularly those that involve nations third-world tendencies or nations with oppressive, two-class systems, have a pronounced leveling effect. While they may improve conditions in the poorer nations to which manufacture is exported, it has a corresponding depressive effect on the more advanced economies, and worst of all on us, the world's most prosperous economy.
Wealth is is actually created (as opposed to just being moved around and concentrated into different pockets) in only one way -- the conversion of inexpensive raw materials into expensive finished products. This is called "manufacture," and when it is removed from one country to another, as we have been doing with our manufacturing capacity since the dawn of the era of free international trade, the recipient country creates wealth of its own at the expense of the country from which the manufacturing facilities were removed.
So we find our future economic outlook disheartening, and quite understandably so.
These trade pacts, particularly those that involve nations third-world tendencies or nations with oppressive, two-class systems, have a pronounced leveling effect. While they may improve conditions in the poorer nations to which manufacture is exported, it has a corresponding depressive effect on the more advanced economies, and worst of all on us, the world's most prosperous economy.
Wealth is is actually created (as opposed to just being moved around and concentrated into different pockets) in only one way -- the conversion of inexpensive raw materials into expensive finished products. This is called "manufacture," and when it is removed from one country to another, as we have been doing with our manufacturing capacity since the dawn of the era of free international trade, the recipient country creates wealth of its own at the expense of the country from which the manufacturing facilities were removed.
So we find our future economic outlook disheartening, and quite understandably so.
4
Indeed this transplant of jobs with the transplant of manufacturing has occurred. The semiconductor manufacturing industry is a case in point. Not only have $10 billion dollar plants been located abroad, and the manpower to operate them, but also the research and development needed to advance the technology from one generation to another.
This transplant of technology is not a consequence of trade pacts, but a consequence of the mobility of money and information.
The way to create jobs that stay at home is create a culture and infrastructure at home that supports a dynamic interactive work force. A complex web of interdependencies between people and jobs and ways of life is difficult to export because you have to export the whole shebang - savvy and schools, elan and esprit.
This transplant of technology is not a consequence of trade pacts, but a consequence of the mobility of money and information.
The way to create jobs that stay at home is create a culture and infrastructure at home that supports a dynamic interactive work force. A complex web of interdependencies between people and jobs and ways of life is difficult to export because you have to export the whole shebang - savvy and schools, elan and esprit.
2
Actually, when you look up the figures, the manufacture of goods in the U.S. is still the highest in the world, and has continued to grow over the last few decades.
But through the technological improvement in manufacturing, it now takes far fewer workers to accomplish that. Also, the goods manufactured in the U.S. have higher complexity than they used to, so it takes better trained and skilled workers to accomplish this manufacturing. Thus the big loss of jobs has been in the less skilled manufacturing areas, which largely are the jobs that have been "exported."
None of this says that workers in the U.S. cannot be given skills which will allow earning good wages, but those who are in mid-career have bigger difficulty making the adjustments and should be given a lot more help than they have been.
But through the technological improvement in manufacturing, it now takes far fewer workers to accomplish that. Also, the goods manufactured in the U.S. have higher complexity than they used to, so it takes better trained and skilled workers to accomplish this manufacturing. Thus the big loss of jobs has been in the less skilled manufacturing areas, which largely are the jobs that have been "exported."
None of this says that workers in the U.S. cannot be given skills which will allow earning good wages, but those who are in mid-career have bigger difficulty making the adjustments and should be given a lot more help than they have been.
The idea that it is the lack of education that impedes employment is a half-truth. There are many skilled workers (even with PhD's) who cannot find work. The present economy, with its major focus upon commodities of little value and 'services' that are unsatisfactory, cannot generate enough demand to employ enough people. It's time to return to a service and value economy, instead of flim-flam economy.
2
This essay is a bit all over the place. Yes, the other republican candidates were defective as well. The party has been drinking the kool aid of Fox, Limbaugh et al for too long. The one idea of the campaign, Cruz' promotion of a Value Added Tax, should be explored further as PART of tax reform.
Growth and productivity are just starting to come into focus. Part of it is a measurement issue. Most is the simple transition to a mature service economy. How do you measure the productivity of a writer like Krugman? Or let's say minimum wages for waiters are raised. This might result in fewer restaurants or more self service. But in any event is a restaurant meal more productive than a home cooked one? So we may need to look more at the quality of economic activity, crossing that forbidden "value" boundary. Or develop new measures of economic success and environmental stewardship.
Growth and productivity are just starting to come into focus. Part of it is a measurement issue. Most is the simple transition to a mature service economy. How do you measure the productivity of a writer like Krugman? Or let's say minimum wages for waiters are raised. This might result in fewer restaurants or more self service. But in any event is a restaurant meal more productive than a home cooked one? So we may need to look more at the quality of economic activity, crossing that forbidden "value" boundary. Or develop new measures of economic success and environmental stewardship.
When the rich stop the "let them eat cake" attitude our country can begin to turn the corner on economic recovery. Equitable taxes based on income means the people at the top will pay their fair share for the greater good. Trump probably pays very little tax and is quite proud of it. That's called greed.
2
In response to stagnation –
The Fed can create more dollars. To fight the Depression, FDR used federal agencies. We could create three agencies to invest in energy, infrastructure, and housing. US firms and workers would do the construction.
The Fed would create dollars and loan them to these agencies at a miniscule rate of interest. The investments would generate revenues for the agencies. The dollars would be returned to the Fed which could shred them. The result is no net debt and no cost for the taxpayer.
Ultra low interest mortgages could be provided for low to moderate income families. Even with low inflation, these mortgages would be, for the homeowner, like bank accounts. Whenever they sold, they would get their equity back.
Therefore, these low cost agency mortgage could be written for 50 or 60 years. The time would not matter because whenever you sold you would get your payments back.
Energy facilities and the grid would generate revenues for the agency to pay back its loan. Investments in infrastructure could generate fees or, in some cases, a user tax that would be described as a fee.
We can control inflation. If it occurred, it could be curbed by increasing interest rates in the overall economy, or with a marginal increase in the progressive income tax rate.
In the past, bad conditions in the economy were caused by the bad behavior of political leaders, not by a failure of Keynesian economics, e.g., inflation under Weimer or the inflation begun under Nixon.
The Fed can create more dollars. To fight the Depression, FDR used federal agencies. We could create three agencies to invest in energy, infrastructure, and housing. US firms and workers would do the construction.
The Fed would create dollars and loan them to these agencies at a miniscule rate of interest. The investments would generate revenues for the agencies. The dollars would be returned to the Fed which could shred them. The result is no net debt and no cost for the taxpayer.
Ultra low interest mortgages could be provided for low to moderate income families. Even with low inflation, these mortgages would be, for the homeowner, like bank accounts. Whenever they sold, they would get their equity back.
Therefore, these low cost agency mortgage could be written for 50 or 60 years. The time would not matter because whenever you sold you would get your payments back.
Energy facilities and the grid would generate revenues for the agency to pay back its loan. Investments in infrastructure could generate fees or, in some cases, a user tax that would be described as a fee.
We can control inflation. If it occurred, it could be curbed by increasing interest rates in the overall economy, or with a marginal increase in the progressive income tax rate.
In the past, bad conditions in the economy were caused by the bad behavior of political leaders, not by a failure of Keynesian economics, e.g., inflation under Weimer or the inflation begun under Nixon.
What is hampering the economy in the U.S. and many nations is the harmful effects of neoliberal or conservative economic policy. That harm is what is alienating people from political leadership.
FDR was responding successfully to the Great Depression. In 1938, conservatives gained power in Congress. They pressured FDR to agree to austerity too soon, when we should have continued our investment in recovery. The 1938 slowdown in our recovery was the fault of conservative economic policy.
But overall, our recovery from the Depression succeeded. Historians agree that the Depression would have been much worse without FDR’s policies.
FDR was responding successfully to the Great Depression. In 1938, conservatives gained power in Congress. They pressured FDR to agree to austerity too soon, when we should have continued our investment in recovery. The 1938 slowdown in our recovery was the fault of conservative economic policy.
But overall, our recovery from the Depression succeeded. Historians agree that the Depression would have been much worse without FDR’s policies.
Bill Clinton, for all of his faults, understood his constituents. He understood, as did Ronald Reagan, that the American people would follow what he said. When he told us, we are going to grow the economy, it grew. Barack Obama, with his cool intellect, forgot to tell everyone to get out and try. Mrs. Clinton, and hopefully, Bill Clinton, need to tell the American people, "We will grow this economy." There are also structural problems that no one talks about: Too many foreclosures. Mrs. Clinton needs to say, "We will fix this, by forcing banks to liquidate them." Too much monopoly pricing, which she should also acknowledge and change. Americans are kind of simple, and will believe what she tells them. That can be the most powerful economic engine there is. Even if Mrs. Clinton forgets, Bill will be there to remind her. Americans like to be optimistic, not this gloomy Gus mentality that has settled over the Republicans.
It's all pointless. The House will never pass a tax increase and the Dems will lose the Senate back in the midterms. Economically, we shall have four more years of stagnation.
1
What would get growth going again?
Diagnosis: We're up against demographic and inequality trends, along with low-cost global competition. I also suspect we're up against a shift in worker mix to lower productivity industries and automation that destroys jobs net.
Solutions:
1. Lots of young, skilled immigrants. Output is # workers times productivity. Immigrants bring their own demand; there are 26 million employed immigrants and 8 million unemployed total.
2. Free college and trade school. Employment and participation rates are proportional to educational attainment.
3. Lower income inequality. Restrict payments of dividends and stock buybacks as a multiple of worker pay increases. After-tax, raise marginal rates significantly on the rich.
4. Lower wealth inequality via aggressive estate tax.
HRC is much closer to this prescription than Mr. Trump.
Diagnosis: We're up against demographic and inequality trends, along with low-cost global competition. I also suspect we're up against a shift in worker mix to lower productivity industries and automation that destroys jobs net.
Solutions:
1. Lots of young, skilled immigrants. Output is # workers times productivity. Immigrants bring their own demand; there are 26 million employed immigrants and 8 million unemployed total.
2. Free college and trade school. Employment and participation rates are proportional to educational attainment.
3. Lower income inequality. Restrict payments of dividends and stock buybacks as a multiple of worker pay increases. After-tax, raise marginal rates significantly on the rich.
4. Lower wealth inequality via aggressive estate tax.
HRC is much closer to this prescription than Mr. Trump.
3
Conservatives have been promising all sorts of fantastic things for some time now.
Unfortunately, when they get into office, the only fantastic things concerning them are increased tax breaks and other perks for their corporate sponsors.
Up until now, their electorate has not seemed to mind being ignored in favor of the rich.
Now, however, they have Trump making all sorts of fantastic promises and his core electorate believes every word he says.
Some people just never seem to learn.
Only in America.
Unfortunately, when they get into office, the only fantastic things concerning them are increased tax breaks and other perks for their corporate sponsors.
Up until now, their electorate has not seemed to mind being ignored in favor of the rich.
Now, however, they have Trump making all sorts of fantastic promises and his core electorate believes every word he says.
Some people just never seem to learn.
Only in America.
4
Einstein suggested that insanity was doing the same over and over and expecting a different outcome. That makes Republican economic policy insanity. Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation whether the economy is sick or healthy. But, it has never, never worked. The only results have been an exploding debt, a decimated middle class, and massive income/wealth inequality. It is time to call Republic economic policy what it is - insane.
11
The Republican argument against the estate tax is that it causes profitable businesses to close because it cannot afford to pay the estate tax without depleting it's cash reserves or selling off pieces of the business. There is an easy alternative to this. Convert the business to an employee owned business, rewarding those that helped to build the business while reducing the value of the inheritance below the taxable amount.
4
Dr Krugman, please please put the Infrastructure Fairy away - the heavy construction industry has seen 25 years of contraction, thanks, in large part, to the We Won't Spend Money (where working people will benefit) Crowd aka the Republican Party. It cannot absorb a massive influx of stimulus money, it doesn't have the necessary field supervision and management in place, and it takes a good 2 years AFTER college to train this level of employee.
Yes, the roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities in this country are in sorry shape, and must be addressed, but this is not a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it and expecting immediate results. If you wish to solve the economy's problems by throwing money around, writing off student loan debt is a much better place to start.
Yes, the Tea Party will howl, but after Trump and his support of their bigoted and elitist agenda has played out, no one outside of Ben Sasse will pay it any heed. This election is between Stupid and Proud of It, and the rest of America. The mess is 30 years in the making and will not be fixed in 1 Presidential term.
Yes, the roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities in this country are in sorry shape, and must be addressed, but this is not a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it and expecting immediate results. If you wish to solve the economy's problems by throwing money around, writing off student loan debt is a much better place to start.
Yes, the Tea Party will howl, but after Trump and his support of their bigoted and elitist agenda has played out, no one outside of Ben Sasse will pay it any heed. This election is between Stupid and Proud of It, and the rest of America. The mess is 30 years in the making and will not be fixed in 1 Presidential term.
4
So much of our infrastructure was built during the New Deal; almost all those crumbling bridges have cornerstones dated 1993 or thereabouts. The composition of the American work force was very different - a much higher proportion of manual labourers. Moreover, it was assumed this state of affairs was acceptable, even healthy; we hadn't yet subscribed to the notion that everyone must go to college and that all our manual-labour jobs could either be outsourced to the Third World or we could import the Third World here to do them. And to top it off, much of the work force - assumed to be male 'breadwinners' - was so desperate that even people with an education, who'd been at a desk job, would pick up a pick and shovel.
Writing off student loan debt may be a lousy place to start, because it continues to encourage students who really ought to consider trade school rather than academic work. We need more homegrown skilled carpenters, bricklayers, masons, et al. in a new CCC - not a glut of computer programmers competing with China and India (they can use computers, too!) in a race to the bottom, or living in their parents' basement while they hope to devise the next Candy Crush or Pokémon Go app (equivalent of planning your financial future as, 'I will buy the winning Powerball ticket').
Writing off student loan debt may be a lousy place to start, because it continues to encourage students who really ought to consider trade school rather than academic work. We need more homegrown skilled carpenters, bricklayers, masons, et al. in a new CCC - not a glut of computer programmers competing with China and India (they can use computers, too!) in a race to the bottom, or living in their parents' basement while they hope to devise the next Candy Crush or Pokémon Go app (equivalent of planning your financial future as, 'I will buy the winning Powerball ticket').
3
Obviously I meant '1933' in the first sentence.
Service sector unionization. It's the only way to establish seniority-based wage hikes in 80% of our economy.
Kill the trickle down zombie, revive the "bubble up" model of our grandparents!
Kill the trickle down zombie, revive the "bubble up" model of our grandparents!
1
Here's an example of what service sector unions can do. From today's news!
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/08/15/business/15reuters-sports-dire...
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/08/15/business/15reuters-sports-dire...
Infrastructure? Really?
How about human capital, deregulation and competition?
Right. it's the US we are talking about, not Mexico.
Is it?
How about human capital, deregulation and competition?
Right. it's the US we are talking about, not Mexico.
Is it?
3
Krugman, sometimes I think you're a hopeless wonk focused on minute policy details. Other times I think you're a hopeless romantic focused on a positive vision of tomorrow. I'm glad people like you exist :)
2
The one feature of this recovery that receives little attention is how it meshes with demographics. About half of the 75 million or so Baby Boomers have hit retirement age. That leaves the other half in their mid-to-late-50's: a tough time to retrain for a new career and a tough spot to compete with 80 million Millennials willing to work for lower wages.
And that fact that this group is just entering the heavy-user years of health care doesn't help the larger economic picture either.
And that fact that this group is just entering the heavy-user years of health care doesn't help the larger economic picture either.
3
It all boils down to one fact. In order to spend money, even on essential things like infrastructure, you have to get it from somewhere. That 'somewhere' tends to be companies and people who have a lot of it. Unfortunately, these are the very sources that are best at protecting and hiding it. Just look at Donald Trump.
4
First things first: I don't agree with mr. Krugman's diagnosis. But that's beside the point, since the central issue here is political.
During the Democratic primaries, HRC and the NYT (including mr. Krugman himself, more than once), kept writing that Bernie Sanders' proposals were unrealistic, that they were far-left, socialist etc. etc. Bernie Sanders' supporters kept saying he was not radical, that what he pledged was traditional center-left etc. (Sanders even joked once, saying in one of his rallies that if he was a socialist, then Dwight Eisenhower was also a socialist).
During the same primaries, HRC watered down the minimum wage rise (Sanders wanted $20.00; she pledged $15.00), refused to break the big banks etc.
Now that her nomination is secured, she copied a lot of Sanders's proposals (with the clear intent of 'whipping' his supporters' votes) and now everybody is praising her program as "realistic", "center-left" etc. etc.
The question is: if the Democratic Party always wanted Sanders' program, why wasn't he nominated? In my opinion, HRC is being a populist, she doesn't intend to fulfill even the modest proposals she promised; she'll make symbolic acts (like e.g. Obamacare) and call it fulfilled in the best case scenario. Other things she won't do she'll simply blame the GOP senators and congressmen, Russia or the mystic forces of "the Market".
During the Democratic primaries, HRC and the NYT (including mr. Krugman himself, more than once), kept writing that Bernie Sanders' proposals were unrealistic, that they were far-left, socialist etc. etc. Bernie Sanders' supporters kept saying he was not radical, that what he pledged was traditional center-left etc. (Sanders even joked once, saying in one of his rallies that if he was a socialist, then Dwight Eisenhower was also a socialist).
During the same primaries, HRC watered down the minimum wage rise (Sanders wanted $20.00; she pledged $15.00), refused to break the big banks etc.
Now that her nomination is secured, she copied a lot of Sanders's proposals (with the clear intent of 'whipping' his supporters' votes) and now everybody is praising her program as "realistic", "center-left" etc. etc.
The question is: if the Democratic Party always wanted Sanders' program, why wasn't he nominated? In my opinion, HRC is being a populist, she doesn't intend to fulfill even the modest proposals she promised; she'll make symbolic acts (like e.g. Obamacare) and call it fulfilled in the best case scenario. Other things she won't do she'll simply blame the GOP senators and congressmen, Russia or the mystic forces of "the Market".
2
People really need to stop crowing about the jobless rate. I know many very skilled and educated white collar workers who have been out of work for an extended period of time. They, like anyone else who has gone longer than 13 weeks do not appear on the jobless roles.
I do not denigrate President Obama's work. I see a huge uptick in the blue collar job availability. I just suggest while taking a victory lap you might look over the fence to the people who couldn't afford to attend the race. They are not few.
I do not denigrate President Obama's work. I see a huge uptick in the blue collar job availability. I just suggest while taking a victory lap you might look over the fence to the people who couldn't afford to attend the race. They are not few.
3
Another installment of "The Wonderful Wonderfulness of Hillary"?
Obama's recovery, which was only necessary because of Bill Clinton's deregulation of the Banks, was aimed at helping the Banks, Corporations and the 1% and they are doing pretty well but for the rest of us it's still the pits.
Hillary's "Bait & Switch" scam of the Left is really no different than the Republican's "Bait & Switch" scam of the right.
Hillary is going to tax the rich and regulate Wall Street with a Republican House of Representatives? Just how is she going to do that?
You ignored Hillary's other promises to keep feeding the bloated military and continue our unending oil wars that will get support in Congress and pretty much soak up our resources and energy.
Sustainable energy to replace oil is the only thing that will stop global warming and save our civilization but Hillary and the Republicans are fighting over how to fight for what's left of the oil.
Obama's recovery, which was only necessary because of Bill Clinton's deregulation of the Banks, was aimed at helping the Banks, Corporations and the 1% and they are doing pretty well but for the rest of us it's still the pits.
Hillary's "Bait & Switch" scam of the Left is really no different than the Republican's "Bait & Switch" scam of the right.
Hillary is going to tax the rich and regulate Wall Street with a Republican House of Representatives? Just how is she going to do that?
You ignored Hillary's other promises to keep feeding the bloated military and continue our unending oil wars that will get support in Congress and pretty much soak up our resources and energy.
Sustainable energy to replace oil is the only thing that will stop global warming and save our civilization but Hillary and the Republicans are fighting over how to fight for what's left of the oil.
5
Want growth, have people with skills and knowledge continue working past retirement age.
Many older workers would continue working into older age if there were more jobs other than Walmart greeter. There are many jobs that younger workers perform that are taken by healthy, young workers who would be better suited for many of the jobs older workers are leaving. This seems to be a mismatch in opportunity.
Getting older workers on payrolls would reduce SS and Medicare spending further helping the budget.
Healthy older workers don't want to quit to retirement many just want to slow down.
Many older workers would continue working into older age if there were more jobs other than Walmart greeter. There are many jobs that younger workers perform that are taken by healthy, young workers who would be better suited for many of the jobs older workers are leaving. This seems to be a mismatch in opportunity.
Getting older workers on payrolls would reduce SS and Medicare spending further helping the budget.
Healthy older workers don't want to quit to retirement many just want to slow down.
2
It demonstrates the enormous political bias of the author that he can characterize the “recovery” from the Great Recession as having “done reasonably well.” The facts say that this “recovery” was the weakest rebound from a major recession in US history, and was characterized by a massive permanent exodus from the labor force. Interest rates are still at depression levels and continuing to fall. The federal government’s debt situation cannot avoid catastrophe if the US is unable to return to 3-4% GDP growth, which looks increasingly unlikely as the US continues its dreary march to Eurosocialism and Eurosclerosis.
The author seems to be saying that America should give up on trying to be America and just throw in the towel.
The author seems to be saying that America should give up on trying to be America and just throw in the towel.
2
Where is your growth rate going to come from? And please don't say tax cuts which are complete rubbish. Look at Kansas.
the recovery was not unprecedented. If you look, for example, at the recovery of certain states, let's say my home, Michigan-- Michigan has had jobless recoveries from recessions since the 1980's. Michigan never recovered from the 2001 recession and was in fact in a one state recession from 2001 to 2008 when the rest of the country caught up with us. This is ground zero for the exporting of jobs and the replacing of jobs (previously good paying jobs) with robotics. Welcome to the future. It's full of bad things, like lead tainted drinking water, and a very conservative, business oriented government that gives not one fig for the vast majority of citizens. Next time someone tells you we should elect businessmen to government, think very hard before you nod and smile.
Since the Republicans love to use analogies rather than clear-cut facts, thus comparing the national economy, budget and debt to a family household, I think using another analogy is appropriate.
If you've ever been in a serious accident where you are injured (and I hope those reading this don't experience it), you know that full recovery is a long and painful process, requiring dedication, gritted teeth and the determination not to let this beat you. You also learn along the way that you will ALWAYS bear some consequences of the accident, whether in scars, limits to your actions, or manageable pain.
From 2001 to 2009, we suffered train wreck after train wreck as our irresponsible leadership ALWAYS took the wrong actions in crisis after crisis, and even created a few predictably and unnecessarily.
So for the next 8 years we have been going through rehabilitation, slowly, painfully, but progressively. It COULD have been better but the obstructionist Republican Congress ensured it couldn't thinking that if they could claim Obama failed (even though due to their actions) they could recapture the White House and deepen control of Congress.
Clinton's economic plan is based on the idea that getting anything big through Congress may prove impossible and, like physical therapy, the rehabilitation of the US economy must continue gradually.
If you've ever been in a serious accident where you are injured (and I hope those reading this don't experience it), you know that full recovery is a long and painful process, requiring dedication, gritted teeth and the determination not to let this beat you. You also learn along the way that you will ALWAYS bear some consequences of the accident, whether in scars, limits to your actions, or manageable pain.
From 2001 to 2009, we suffered train wreck after train wreck as our irresponsible leadership ALWAYS took the wrong actions in crisis after crisis, and even created a few predictably and unnecessarily.
So for the next 8 years we have been going through rehabilitation, slowly, painfully, but progressively. It COULD have been better but the obstructionist Republican Congress ensured it couldn't thinking that if they could claim Obama failed (even though due to their actions) they could recapture the White House and deepen control of Congress.
Clinton's economic plan is based on the idea that getting anything big through Congress may prove impossible and, like physical therapy, the rehabilitation of the US economy must continue gradually.
6
Nicely done, Doc! Keep on keeping on!
1
"So it’s actually quite brave to say: 'Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.'"
Certainly it was brave of Walter Mondale to say this in a 1984 presidential debate: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you, I just did."
But what did that bravery get him? His home state, the District of Columbia, and nothing else.
Certainly it was brave of Walter Mondale to say this in a 1984 presidential debate: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you, I just did."
But what did that bravery get him? His home state, the District of Columbia, and nothing else.
2
Enough about Clinton and Trump. That battle seems to be winding down. Its about the Congress, stupid.. Dems and Ms Clinton need to start campaigning about Congress because that is where the change is realized.
3
Clinton is JUST SO BRAVE. And a hard worker. And really does her homework.
Should be interesting once her brave, hard working, homework doing self runs headlong into a Republican congress.
Sounds more like she's promising not just the moon and the stars but part of the sun as well.
Of course, Bill got around the same problem by just adopting the Republican agenda.
So there's the next four years mapped out for you, right here, by yours truly.
Hang on folks, sharp right turn ahead!
Should be interesting once her brave, hard working, homework doing self runs headlong into a Republican congress.
Sounds more like she's promising not just the moon and the stars but part of the sun as well.
Of course, Bill got around the same problem by just adopting the Republican agenda.
So there's the next four years mapped out for you, right here, by yours truly.
Hang on folks, sharp right turn ahead!
1
Eight yeas of not spending judiciously and adding to a debt now totaling nineteen trillion tells the story. There is no money; get over it.
There is more money here than there is in the rest of the world-- and you are telling me we are broke? There are some very wealthy people, who have stashed money in odd little corners of the world, to keep it from being taxes properly, who want the country to drink your kool-aid...sorry, not buying it.
And, we need to keep Paul Manafort's and Donald Trump's totally self-serving sleazy economic manipulations out of the White House because, while they line their pockets and those of their cronies, they will destroy the American economy; and, as well, further dupe those who think they will help them, Trump's supporters.
4
Once again, please do not forget that the highest marginal rate in the 1950s was 90% under that "Lefty" President Eisenhower. And he got the National Interstate system built (Called Infrastructure today).
Then the "conservative" JFK reduced them to "only" 70%.
Then the "conservative" JFK reduced them to "only" 70%.
3
Although I agree that the natural rate of growth has slowed, policy should still focus primarily on growth, as pro-growth policy could still mean the difference between 1% and 2% growth. We need the serenity to accept that we will not achieve 4% growth barring a new technological revolution, but also the wisdom to realize that we could be doing a lot worse than 2%.
Trump is the worse major party nominee in history. And, yet, he was better than all of the other Republican contenders this year than possibly Kasich.
1
"And some people I respect believe that trying to get [the economic growth rate] back up should be a big goal of policy."
And who are these people? What have they written? You've got links for everything else. But the important part -- the links to people who disagree with Dr. Krugman -- are conspicuously missing.
Instead of giving us options, you give us a serenity prayer and lame cop-out: "What do we know about economic growth anyway?" Really? Prof. Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, want's to tell us that we shouldn't even look into the issue of declining growth and just (serenely) accept the Clinton plan?
That's worse than useless, and it's a betrayal of everything that academic research and good journalism used to stand for. I know its "Important" that Clinton defeat Trump, but does that mean that we also have to stop asking questions and cease challenging our own assumptions?
And who are these people? What have they written? You've got links for everything else. But the important part -- the links to people who disagree with Dr. Krugman -- are conspicuously missing.
Instead of giving us options, you give us a serenity prayer and lame cop-out: "What do we know about economic growth anyway?" Really? Prof. Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, want's to tell us that we shouldn't even look into the issue of declining growth and just (serenely) accept the Clinton plan?
That's worse than useless, and it's a betrayal of everything that academic research and good journalism used to stand for. I know its "Important" that Clinton defeat Trump, but does that mean that we also have to stop asking questions and cease challenging our own assumptions?
Sorry,her plan is nonsense.. Since 1979 the peak of the American middle class , we've added 100 million people and lost all our manufacturing base..Can't get that back...
1
We know a good deal about what works to spur growth from the things FDR did during the Great Depression. Obama arguably had a chance to do something similar, had he been the sort of president he pretended he would be when he ran. Mrs. Clinton now will have a similar chance.
However, she would have to go up against the oligarchy she has spent her political life working to become part of. Left to her own devices, I have no faith that she will do so. This is where the continued involvement of those who supported Senator Sanders will be vital. A progressive presence in the Democratic Party must become permanent and remain active.
The last thing Mrs. Clinton wants if she becomes president is to be booted by her own party after one term. That threat must be developed, and be real. Then we might get from her the policies that will help boost America's working class.
However, she would have to go up against the oligarchy she has spent her political life working to become part of. Left to her own devices, I have no faith that she will do so. This is where the continued involvement of those who supported Senator Sanders will be vital. A progressive presence in the Democratic Party must become permanent and remain active.
The last thing Mrs. Clinton wants if she becomes president is to be booted by her own party after one term. That threat must be developed, and be real. Then we might get from her the policies that will help boost America's working class.
2
I dreamed last night that Clinton came to my house and sat in my living room with me and some other Democrats for a campaign chat with the common man meant to win votes. It could remotely happen, as I live in Ohio. I literally begged her to make central to her administration policies to help the average person, describing us as sponges that have been wrung and wrung until they have not a drop left. She hemmed and hawed, made excuses. I think the dream expressed both what the country needs in terms of priorities and what will be Clinton's real response. But I will vote for her anyway. The alternative is unthinkable. We just have to keep the pressure on relentlessly, as the rightwing will. Now is the time to realize we can and must change things. Now is absolutely not the time for the serenity prayer.
2
I thought this was good but I do have two hours on this. One is that Hillary still hasn't articulated all that much of a vision of where she wants to take the U.S. That was the thing about Bernie Sander's campaigned that inspired so many people. He had a vision and he wanted to fight inequality and push for programs that would matter. We still have a lot of poverty here and there needs to be substantial investment not just in roads and other infrastructure but in education and health care,
The second thought is that with the need to fight climate change many people say that a sustainable economy is one that doesn't depend on GDP growth, at least in developed countries.
The second thought is that with the need to fight climate change many people say that a sustainable economy is one that doesn't depend on GDP growth, at least in developed countries.
1
Excellent article and provides very interesting food for thought. I hope all leaders read your article as we have so many things that can be improved if we focus on the needs of the people versus ideology.
1
Fantastic growth as promised by conservatives is a myth much like the "benefits" to be derived from cutting the taxes of the wealthy. "Trickle down" is yet another fairy tale. Republican economics need to be shown the door.
Clinton's moderate approach tempered by infrastructure spending is a good place to start. It would be wonderful if she had a Congress working along side of her. Hint, hint, hint.
Clinton's moderate approach tempered by infrastructure spending is a good place to start. It would be wonderful if she had a Congress working along side of her. Hint, hint, hint.
3
First of all, Clinton is a criminal and we are not electing a criminal as president. Second, the economic situation is terrible because of Krugman advocated economic fiction. When my grandpa, father and myself all grew up, it was possible for a single father to buy a house, car and put kids through college on a sole reasonable salary as a chemical engineer. Now my kids, all married, cannot afford it even with both parents working as a teacher, corporate controller, attorney and PHD physicist. Krugman, what happened? answer: government grew and wrecked the dreams. Please stop trying to tell me how wonderful it all is because I have lived too long to believe anything you write. Im certainly not voting for central government economic planning.
2
"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."
Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on taxing inherited wealth.
The estate tax is the governments ability to insure that there will be no return to an aristocracy.
Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on taxing inherited wealth.
The estate tax is the governments ability to insure that there will be no return to an aristocracy.
7
The growth of the economy is directly tied to the amount of disposable income that Americans have and the security they feel to spend it. Income levels stalled for decades, as most gains in the economy went to the top, do not provide for more than life’s basics for many working Americans. Fear of economic devastation lurking with their next health crisis, out sourcing, or vulture merger of their company requires people to hunker down to survive in an insecure environment. So yes, Clinton's proposals of good private sector jobs rebuilding an infrastructure, devastated by years of neglect for never ending tax cuts, and strengthening of the social safety net will give people disposable income and the security to spend it.
Add an increase in the minimum wage so full time working people at places like Wal-Mart and McDonnell’s do not need food stamps. American taxpayers should not be subsidizing these wealthy corporations.
Eliminate the for profit Healthcare system and stabilize healthcare for Americans, like the rest of the world, so people don't fear what next year’s healthcare changes will bring.
Rein in the greed and gambling on Wall Street re-establish Glass-Steagall and bring back the security of banking stability.
Add an increase in the minimum wage so full time working people at places like Wal-Mart and McDonnell’s do not need food stamps. American taxpayers should not be subsidizing these wealthy corporations.
Eliminate the for profit Healthcare system and stabilize healthcare for Americans, like the rest of the world, so people don't fear what next year’s healthcare changes will bring.
Rein in the greed and gambling on Wall Street re-establish Glass-Steagall and bring back the security of banking stability.
1
What I have yet to hear is how rising GDP and increasing markets squares with climate change, rising population and the necessity to have a much reduced footprint while producing this economic growth. The two things seem to be contradictory. As we recycle, move to renewable energy, change to a more mindful, less possession-cluttered lifestyle, aren't climate change and the standard economic growth patterns in direct conflict?
Typically, the more tee shirts produced and bought, the better the GDP--no matter that we are overproducing tee shirts, adding them to landfills raising more and more cotton in a destructive mono-crop fashion, using more and more energy--to fulfill a need for tee shirts--a need that has to be generated to fight a saturated market.
Rising GDP and productivity can happen with increasing automation while bypassing an insecure and unemployed population. We need leadership that recognizes our past economic patterns no longer suffice.
Typically, the more tee shirts produced and bought, the better the GDP--no matter that we are overproducing tee shirts, adding them to landfills raising more and more cotton in a destructive mono-crop fashion, using more and more energy--to fulfill a need for tee shirts--a need that has to be generated to fight a saturated market.
Rising GDP and productivity can happen with increasing automation while bypassing an insecure and unemployed population. We need leadership that recognizes our past economic patterns no longer suffice.
2
an interesting response
Wisdom and courage are qualities that skew to the rational. They are part of what Stephen Colbert meant when he said that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
The fantastic growth promises of Bushonomics are inseparable from the racial scapegoating baked into Republican campaign rhetoric since Nixon's Southern Strategy. I don't think it is quite right that they have shied away from open talk about about cutting popular programs. it is only the paying for the tax cuts half of this equation—the reality-based aspect of it that appeals to so-called "high information voters" that they have refused to concede.
Trump's twist on the old narrative is to further exaggerate this break from reality. He will make the tax cuts even larger and entrust the economy to his friends at the country club. But he will stabilize social programs for retirement and health and make a minimum wage law superfluous with an influx of working class jobs.
That Republicans, "don't want to admit how much they would have to cut popular programs to pay for their tax cuts," identifies the place where the two parties diverge—not because it is true exactly, but because it pinpoints a place where Democrats look for truths while Republicans have closed ranks to elevate rhetoric above the verifiable.
Clinton speaks to policy. Trump has doubled down on Bushonomics and race baiting. But he makes concessions to the working class that are new to Republican rhetoric. Shrewd, yes, but not courageous.
The fantastic growth promises of Bushonomics are inseparable from the racial scapegoating baked into Republican campaign rhetoric since Nixon's Southern Strategy. I don't think it is quite right that they have shied away from open talk about about cutting popular programs. it is only the paying for the tax cuts half of this equation—the reality-based aspect of it that appeals to so-called "high information voters" that they have refused to concede.
Trump's twist on the old narrative is to further exaggerate this break from reality. He will make the tax cuts even larger and entrust the economy to his friends at the country club. But he will stabilize social programs for retirement and health and make a minimum wage law superfluous with an influx of working class jobs.
That Republicans, "don't want to admit how much they would have to cut popular programs to pay for their tax cuts," identifies the place where the two parties diverge—not because it is true exactly, but because it pinpoints a place where Democrats look for truths while Republicans have closed ranks to elevate rhetoric above the verifiable.
Clinton speaks to policy. Trump has doubled down on Bushonomics and race baiting. But he makes concessions to the working class that are new to Republican rhetoric. Shrewd, yes, but not courageous.
1
While economists like you puzzle over why there is such low GDP growth and participation in the workforce, comments here and the people know why: the billionaires have bled the people beyond what they will bear. To create growth, we will have to reward those who produce.
6
"Rewarding those who produce" is how people become millionaires and billionaires. Most of them were just hardworking middle class people who rose thru their determination & "being at the right place at the right time" = combining with luck. The "old money" crowd ain't that large.
Yet the old money crowd is who funds politics most..
1
Economic growth requires productivity increases: which amounts to figuring out how to accomplish more with the same amount of labor. Three ways to improve it are: (1) the already mentioned infrastructure improvements, (2) improved education, and (3) research. Ms. Clinton is pushing to make college education more affordable, a very worthy goal. But neither candidate has mentioned spending more on research. While the private sector does much of the applied research, the government funds much of the basic research that enables that applied research. Lately, basic research funds have been shrinking. This will reduce productivity growth in the long run.
2
Clinton is starting to sound like Trump on the economy. She's also promising infrastructure spending and special czars to go after currency manipulation and unfair trade. On TPP she's already started saying that the trade deal is hurting workers. One can hope this is simply rhetoric she'll back away from once elected but on the economy Clinton and Trump are getting harder to distinguish.
1
And she also outlined exactly how she intends to pay for that, Trump hasn't done anything of the sort except promise outlandish deficits.
If you don't see a difference between that then I pity you.
If you don't see a difference between that then I pity you.
1
No one seems to want to draw a connection between the massive trade deficit that started kicking in under Bush (the younger) and our lack of GDP growth. This is odd considering that imports are subtracted from GDP.
2
"What do we know about accelerating long-run growth?" Apparently Paul's answer is "Very little."
However, I don't think Paul is trying very hard to be imaginative here. It's pretty evident that the problem is too few jobs of the kind that matter. It's pretty evident that many of those jobs now reside outside our borders. It's pretty evident that export of jobs is possible because money and information are readily exported and take jobs with them (for example, the enormously profitable and technically complex semiconductor industry). So where is the answer?
The answer is jobs that can't be easily exported. Of course, flipping burgers is an example. However, it also is hard to export jobs that require a huge interconnected infrastructure. The whole shebang has to be exported, and as our failure to export Democracy shows, that ain't easy..
Silicon Valley is a miniature version of a hard-to-export web of interconnected skills, schools, and savvy. That could be expanded to something much bigger by improving our education, improving our interconnectedness (fast, low-cost universal web services, merit-based wages and hiring, low-cost excellent education, job mobility with portable health care, informative newspapers and TV), and on, and on.
This interconectedness fall under infrastructure improvement, but conceived as very much more than filling potholes and replacing bridges.
However, I don't think Paul is trying very hard to be imaginative here. It's pretty evident that the problem is too few jobs of the kind that matter. It's pretty evident that many of those jobs now reside outside our borders. It's pretty evident that export of jobs is possible because money and information are readily exported and take jobs with them (for example, the enormously profitable and technically complex semiconductor industry). So where is the answer?
The answer is jobs that can't be easily exported. Of course, flipping burgers is an example. However, it also is hard to export jobs that require a huge interconnected infrastructure. The whole shebang has to be exported, and as our failure to export Democracy shows, that ain't easy..
Silicon Valley is a miniature version of a hard-to-export web of interconnected skills, schools, and savvy. That could be expanded to something much bigger by improving our education, improving our interconnectedness (fast, low-cost universal web services, merit-based wages and hiring, low-cost excellent education, job mobility with portable health care, informative newspapers and TV), and on, and on.
This interconectedness fall under infrastructure improvement, but conceived as very much more than filling potholes and replacing bridges.
2
Quite well thought out. BUT, we need a way of THINKING in our population that hardly exists: the drive and the belief in a kind of "we shall overcome" self reliance and determination to beat the competition. As a population we have moved psychologically to the belief that we must and will be "taken care of." That is NOT creativity & the pioneering that is necessary to accomplish the necessary goals for our future economic growth and success. That mind set is typical of EVERY country that now languishes, unless they just happen to discover gold or oil or diamonds = good luck.
The problem with accepting 1.5% GDP growth as the norm is what happens in the year 2030 when we have 70 million retirees on social security and Medicare? Even if we tax the rich at a 100% tax rate on all income and all capital gains and slash Defense there is simply not enough money to fund these programs. The 1.5% growth model is a disaster for Entitlements as they are now defined.
That said, I applaud HRC's candid low growth assumptions in her modeling for her proposals. This is why her proposals are so meager. She has accepted the new normal of barely existent economic growth. This is why I fully expect her to reverse her position on free trade, once elected, using free trade as a necessary ingredient to saving us from the disaster of permanent anemic growth.
That said, I applaud HRC's candid low growth assumptions in her modeling for her proposals. This is why her proposals are so meager. She has accepted the new normal of barely existent economic growth. This is why I fully expect her to reverse her position on free trade, once elected, using free trade as a necessary ingredient to saving us from the disaster of permanent anemic growth.
In a recent article, there was an analysis of the "low growth" economy. We have been very lucky in the US. We got to fix the world after WWII, because everyone else was bombed out. We thrived and developed the "middle class" which meant that everyone could have a house and a car and go on vacation and send kids to college. The economy grew fast and so did "discretionary" spending which with a multiplier effect, fed on itself and the middle class got to have goods reserved for the rich in the previous century. Then the world caught up and we had to work harder to keep the high profit discretionary spending up, with pet rocks, sponge daddy's, I-phones, big screed TV's and second homes and third cars. Now perhaps folks are less willing to spend as much on "stuff".
Mr. Krugman seems to be explaining that high "growth" economy is not the norm and we will have lower growth going forward. Without colonies like Britain and ancient Rome, or military conquests, we have no reason to grow. Japan has had a less exuberant culture of consumption than ours and much less growth after a rise of a middle class to a steady state. Now they are trying to fight their nature.
Most chemicals systems and biological Eco-systems evolve into to a steady state. Human beings in subsistence economies develop steady states. On average we have pretty close to enough productivity for a comfortable state for all citizens. The question is how to get there, not how to fix tax policy.
Mr. Krugman seems to be explaining that high "growth" economy is not the norm and we will have lower growth going forward. Without colonies like Britain and ancient Rome, or military conquests, we have no reason to grow. Japan has had a less exuberant culture of consumption than ours and much less growth after a rise of a middle class to a steady state. Now they are trying to fight their nature.
Most chemicals systems and biological Eco-systems evolve into to a steady state. Human beings in subsistence economies develop steady states. On average we have pretty close to enough productivity for a comfortable state for all citizens. The question is how to get there, not how to fix tax policy.
1
The steady state involves incorporation of the young and retirement of the old. That should be a steady-state flow of young into and old out of the labor market, but it is a dynamic equilibrium and the dynamics change over time, as does the ratio of number of young to number of old. We have to be able to adapt in order to maintain the status quo as measured by a "comfortable state for all citizens". That requires infrastructure development that prepares the young to take over and for the old to find outlets for their energies too.
1
Wisdom, Courage, and the Economy? In the United States? In 2016?
There goes Krugman again being logical, rational, & worst of all fair-minded. He is suggesting that Americans make rational choices and do some planning to improve our lagging economy. Yikes! Planning? Krugman must be a socialist and anti-American.
How can we get to wisdom, courage, and improving the economy for American society as a whole, when 30-40% of the citizenry are stubbornly ignorant, fueled by emotion and irrationality, and determined NOT to vote for the experienced, knowledgeable Hillary Clinton? No, no, au contraire! They want the narcissistic, bombastic entertainer Donald Trump, who shamelessly parades his ignorance, bigotry, and lack of real political experience as if these are assets for the president of the most powerful country in the world, not liabilities.
We won't get to wisdom, courage, and caring again about society, rather than just the mighty 1% economy, as long as our culture--as reflected by our national corporate and right-wing media--celebrates materialism, commercialism, soundbite thinking, stupidity and the lowest-common denominator to a proudly ignorant and gullible citizenry.
Yet in watching the 2016 election & comparing it with the Olympics: Which cultural presentation is more accurate? Are we a nation of raving mad Trump supporters or are we made up of competent, talented, hard working young people & coaches who come in many colors--some of whom are immigrants and refugees?
There goes Krugman again being logical, rational, & worst of all fair-minded. He is suggesting that Americans make rational choices and do some planning to improve our lagging economy. Yikes! Planning? Krugman must be a socialist and anti-American.
How can we get to wisdom, courage, and improving the economy for American society as a whole, when 30-40% of the citizenry are stubbornly ignorant, fueled by emotion and irrationality, and determined NOT to vote for the experienced, knowledgeable Hillary Clinton? No, no, au contraire! They want the narcissistic, bombastic entertainer Donald Trump, who shamelessly parades his ignorance, bigotry, and lack of real political experience as if these are assets for the president of the most powerful country in the world, not liabilities.
We won't get to wisdom, courage, and caring again about society, rather than just the mighty 1% economy, as long as our culture--as reflected by our national corporate and right-wing media--celebrates materialism, commercialism, soundbite thinking, stupidity and the lowest-common denominator to a proudly ignorant and gullible citizenry.
Yet in watching the 2016 election & comparing it with the Olympics: Which cultural presentation is more accurate? Are we a nation of raving mad Trump supporters or are we made up of competent, talented, hard working young people & coaches who come in many colors--some of whom are immigrants and refugees?
5
The celebration of "materialism, commercialism, soundbite thinking, stupidity and the lowest-common denominator" is not simply a lack of the citizenry, of course, but a deliberate choice of corporate America that long has found you can sell cigarettes if you advertise enough, and there isn't much publicity for the side effects. The reform of corporate slovenly pursuit of money in place of providing useful goods and services just isn't going to happen with a McConnell-Ryan-Roberts domination of government.
1
Why not connect the GDP dots - income disparity creates an ever growing class of people who have less to spend and the stagnation of real wages, including the political football of minimum wage increases, have contributed mightily to low growth.
What is the mystery?
People will have more money to spend and pay more taxes. The government then has more money to pay for goods and services that help improve everyone's lives. We all win even the 1 percenters.
What really needs to be managed is how the money is spent - can consumers make more forward thinking purchasing choices and can politicians make more forward thinking social and environmental policies.
On the one hand it would be great to see GDP improve. But on the other, the indicator of economic growth shouldn't be measured by sales of cars, poorly built houses and cheap quickly disposed of clothing and household goods.
The world needs a better way of measuring economic success.
What is the mystery?
People will have more money to spend and pay more taxes. The government then has more money to pay for goods and services that help improve everyone's lives. We all win even the 1 percenters.
What really needs to be managed is how the money is spent - can consumers make more forward thinking purchasing choices and can politicians make more forward thinking social and environmental policies.
On the one hand it would be great to see GDP improve. But on the other, the indicator of economic growth shouldn't be measured by sales of cars, poorly built houses and cheap quickly disposed of clothing and household goods.
The world needs a better way of measuring economic success.
3
What's changed since the 70's? The percentage of taxes we collect from corporations and the upper class. With it we've spent less on infrastructure both in terms of grand federal projects and smaller local projects known as pork barrel projects. There is a place for federal spending in keeping our economy growing. A chunk of the labor force is missing? Try looking for the people who fix our roads and build our dams, bridges, railroads and schools. What's happened to the incomes of educators especially in colleges and universities? As inequality has risen our labor force, middle class and lower class have suffered greatly. It's all right there. Krugman is aware of this, I wonder if this article is meant to engage thinking and not politicize growing the economy.
1
I would be very interested to see some real research on why the prime age labor force participation rate is down -- particularly, to what extent is it because decent work is hard to find, and to what extent is it because people are choosing to drop out of the labor force in favor of caring for children or elderly parents. Journalism is all well and good, but anecdotal reporting can't fill this need -- we need to be questioning large, random samples of prime age Americans about whether they work for pay, and for those who do not, why they do not.
1
The tragedy of the last 8 years, almost a lost decade, is a Congress who would not do what they could do. Every problem, problems that were solvable, were stonewalled in the name of Republican principles or the reality, let's make the President look bad over and over again. We have the social, economic, and intellectual tools to make life a bit better for the citizens in this country, what is missing is the political will to pick up the tools.
7
Surprisingly given its importance to long term economic growth, there seems to have been little research into why certain period have relatively high rates of productivity and other periods have relatively low rates. http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
Much of the arguments go to weak correlations, and as the late Stephen Jay Gould once wrote in one (or more times) in his essays, "correlation is not causation." It may provide hints for causes and suggestions for creating hypothesis, but it does not prove for instance that "high marginal" tax rates on high income earners creates conditions for productivity growth as from 1947 to 1970 or 1990 to 2000. (Of course, for low marginal rates and tax cuts there is not even correlation and all the other right-wing nostrums for plutocracy, there is not a scintilla of correlation, little lone causation.)
One correlation I find interesting is that from 1947 to 1970, there was vigorous anti-trust enforcement that reduced or at least limited the dominance of different sectors of the economy by a few firms. It would be interesting to look at how growing monopolies (as result of expansion of the patent and copyright privileges) and oligopolies (as a few firms dominate major industry sectors) affect productivity increases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
Much of the arguments go to weak correlations, and as the late Stephen Jay Gould once wrote in one (or more times) in his essays, "correlation is not causation." It may provide hints for causes and suggestions for creating hypothesis, but it does not prove for instance that "high marginal" tax rates on high income earners creates conditions for productivity growth as from 1947 to 1970 or 1990 to 2000. (Of course, for low marginal rates and tax cuts there is not even correlation and all the other right-wing nostrums for plutocracy, there is not a scintilla of correlation, little lone causation.)
One correlation I find interesting is that from 1947 to 1970, there was vigorous anti-trust enforcement that reduced or at least limited the dominance of different sectors of the economy by a few firms. It would be interesting to look at how growing monopolies (as result of expansion of the patent and copyright privileges) and oligopolies (as a few firms dominate major industry sectors) affect productivity increases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
I liked Hillary's plan and the way she would pay for it. I think fixing, and improving, the infrastructure along with skill training rather than college degree training will provide long term job and salary growth. However I do not believe the US will return to the way it was for blue collar workers in the past. That is because the world has changed with globalization and open trade. Trump says he will stop both, he can not! Also the products we buy have changed. As a example the computer we bought in 1990 has many parts and was assembled by hand, today's has one board and was designed to be assembled by a robert. The people betting on Trump to return those jobs he loves to talk about will be very disappointed I am sorry to say.
3
Infrastructure spending to bring us up to date might keep employment up for another 25 years, and then we should be prepared to enter a different paradigm, called sustainability. Meanwhile, Krugman's blithe reference to the disenfranchised in the economy..people in the 40's to 60's who will never recover their standard of living, is hardly sustainability. It is not success no matter how the powers that be try to sweep this under the rug, with the serenity prayer. Because these same people are scrambling to hold up their children, (who are also severely unemployed) with the last of their quickly diminishing assets. Low wage jobs should be a thing of the past, unless the elite will do the only thing left to do to smooth things out, which is a guaranteed income for each and every citizen. There is abundance, but it is held in few hands. There is no excuse for anyone to go without.
10
All well and good, PK, but unless Congress changes hats, it is more likely than not that nothing will be done over the next four years to address these issues.
The House of Representatives, under the leadership of Paul Ryan, is where all spending proposals must originate. Does anyone honestly believe that a GOP House will approve even a penny for any infrastructure program a Clinton Administration would propose? Or anything else coming from the White House?
Nope.
The House of Representatives, under the leadership of Paul Ryan, is where all spending proposals must originate. Does anyone honestly believe that a GOP House will approve even a penny for any infrastructure program a Clinton Administration would propose? Or anything else coming from the White House?
Nope.
5
For those who think benign capitulation is a second best, and your vote does nothing more than keep the country going completely off the rails, and who fall in line with Shirley Chisholms's philosophy for advancing the nation, namely:
"Be bold, like the first human to eat an oyster."
"I don't measure America by its achievement but by its potential."
Yes, vote for Ms. Clinton, but press on with a progressive agenda. Relieving unnecessary suffering unleashes talent to better this country. Be part of a movement growing out of Senator Sanders run for the Presidency. It is a way to hold the next President, the Congress, and other elected officials to steps toward making government a leveler at a higher level for all. Tune in August 24th as Senator Sanders promotes, not himself, but the issues that attracted so many. You can find a location using your zip code to view a live stream at map.berniesanders.com or, coming soon, at map.ourrevolution.com .
"Be bold, like the first human to eat an oyster."
"I don't measure America by its achievement but by its potential."
Yes, vote for Ms. Clinton, but press on with a progressive agenda. Relieving unnecessary suffering unleashes talent to better this country. Be part of a movement growing out of Senator Sanders run for the Presidency. It is a way to hold the next President, the Congress, and other elected officials to steps toward making government a leveler at a higher level for all. Tune in August 24th as Senator Sanders promotes, not himself, but the issues that attracted so many. You can find a location using your zip code to view a live stream at map.berniesanders.com or, coming soon, at map.ourrevolution.com .
It's very important - and very VERY difficult - to distinguish between fantasy and idealism. After all it's not like anyone could ever completely separate them. But though they may be inextricably mixed, they are still two very separate things - even as they keep churning each other relentlessly
The same goes for pragmatism and cynicism.
There are no easy - and no final or definitive - answers for dealing with this scary, invigorating swirl.
I don't want Hillary to promise too much. That is a great way to stoke even more cynicism and despair.
I don't want Hillary to resist building an international economic order. But I want her to stand up against those trying to rig that process in ways that further immiserate and abuse people who are already struggling. I want her to resist those who would use US military and financial firepower to suppress secular or religious nationalism across the globe.
Suppressing nationalistic or pan national efforts at self determination will only create more terrorists and terrorism.
Suppressing nationalistic or cultural efforts to achieve economic self determination is the best way to prove that the global order currently being constructed is unjust, unsound, and unsustainably averse to the interests and well being of the vast majority of the world's population - including at least 80% of the US population.
The same goes for pragmatism and cynicism.
There are no easy - and no final or definitive - answers for dealing with this scary, invigorating swirl.
I don't want Hillary to promise too much. That is a great way to stoke even more cynicism and despair.
I don't want Hillary to resist building an international economic order. But I want her to stand up against those trying to rig that process in ways that further immiserate and abuse people who are already struggling. I want her to resist those who would use US military and financial firepower to suppress secular or religious nationalism across the globe.
Suppressing nationalistic or pan national efforts at self determination will only create more terrorists and terrorism.
Suppressing nationalistic or cultural efforts to achieve economic self determination is the best way to prove that the global order currently being constructed is unjust, unsound, and unsustainably averse to the interests and well being of the vast majority of the world's population - including at least 80% of the US population.
1
This the second article I've read today, the other being your editorial boards treatise of the impact of negative interest in Europe, wherein the solution is "infrastructure spending." Yet in either case, we just can't seem to get there. why is that? Money is so cheep I'm hearing that actually finding bonds to buy is becoming an issue for banks. I'm reading that investors are using the stock market as a bond because they can't buy bonds and there's so much money looking for a home that it forms a "put" under the U.S. stock markets to keep them from dropping.
I know the arguments about living beyond our means or not wanting to saddle our children with debt. However, consider that we are not saddling our children with debt but rather with the income producing bridges, roads, and power grids of the future bought at a moment in time where the cost to do so was at its relative cheapest.
Our political leaders must be so cowed by the "get your hands off of my stack crowd" to not be able to sell what is such an obvious solution to low growth and deflation.
I know the arguments about living beyond our means or not wanting to saddle our children with debt. However, consider that we are not saddling our children with debt but rather with the income producing bridges, roads, and power grids of the future bought at a moment in time where the cost to do so was at its relative cheapest.
Our political leaders must be so cowed by the "get your hands off of my stack crowd" to not be able to sell what is such an obvious solution to low growth and deflation.
6
Insightful and humble, which makes Krugman more credible than many economists. There appears to be widespread agreement that we need to pump money and energy into our infrastructure. How? Surely, there are ways. Can Obama do anything along these lines in the time left for him to lead the way?
2
Trump ''succeeded'' where others failed by transposing the more usual Republican dog whistles into the audible range. With the reality TV ability to deliver sound-bite level lines, Trump quickly revealed that there was no there there among his less capable Republican adversaries.
Trump has since proved the same about himself, with daily outrages and the meek acceptance of barely warmed over Voodoo Economics.
On growth, it seems rather obvious that if the economy were growing at 3% annually rather than 2%, we would see more labor force participation, more job creation, more economic mobility and so on. But there are two major impediments.
In the short run, as in this year, a recent WSJ poll of business economists found a large majority predicting less growth this year (1.8%) as their companies are holding back on spending. Why? Because of the uncertainty created by the political environment. Literally, who knows what Trump would do if elected, although the analyses put forward by Moody's and several of the big banks suggest recession and employment losses.
Second, we have the fantasy that any president has much influence over the economy without the cooperation of the Congress and the Federal Reserve. The Fed has done what it can since the Great Recession, but the Republican Congress, which controls the fiscal policy levers of taxes and spending, is interested only in austerity and has done virtually nothing to boost jobs, productivity or growth.
Trump has since proved the same about himself, with daily outrages and the meek acceptance of barely warmed over Voodoo Economics.
On growth, it seems rather obvious that if the economy were growing at 3% annually rather than 2%, we would see more labor force participation, more job creation, more economic mobility and so on. But there are two major impediments.
In the short run, as in this year, a recent WSJ poll of business economists found a large majority predicting less growth this year (1.8%) as their companies are holding back on spending. Why? Because of the uncertainty created by the political environment. Literally, who knows what Trump would do if elected, although the analyses put forward by Moody's and several of the big banks suggest recession and employment losses.
Second, we have the fantasy that any president has much influence over the economy without the cooperation of the Congress and the Federal Reserve. The Fed has done what it can since the Great Recession, but the Republican Congress, which controls the fiscal policy levers of taxes and spending, is interested only in austerity and has done virtually nothing to boost jobs, productivity or growth.
Growing the economy at 3% would not necessarily increase labor force participation. In fact, in the short run, it might decrease it because companies would be investing in moving manufacturing to Mexico and China as Ford and GE have done.
Be cutting expenses on labor, the amount in the economy for buying goods is decreased.
We are in a situation, like the "Tragedy of the Commons", where if everyone optimizes their self-interest, the whole system collapses. Somehow we have to find a way to balance the situation regarding spending on labor and income for consumers.
Be cutting expenses on labor, the amount in the economy for buying goods is decreased.
We are in a situation, like the "Tragedy of the Commons", where if everyone optimizes their self-interest, the whole system collapses. Somehow we have to find a way to balance the situation regarding spending on labor and income for consumers.
We should take steps to spur investment by individuals and businesses in our economy. Things like:
1. Eliminating the corporate income tax entirely. That would bring home the $2T that is being held by corporations, make America the best place to start and operate a business and cause companies to start relocating into this country instead of leaving.
2. Cut the capital gains rate specifically on stocks (private and public) of companies with headquarters in the USA. This would spur investment in new companies.
3. Cut marginal income tax rates back sown to 28%. This would but more money in the hands of high income people allowing them to invest in the attractive companies with the attractive capital gains treatment.
4. Eliminate the 15.3% payroll tax and replace it with an 8.5% national sales tax. This would replace a tax on working with a tax on consumption. It would give all working people a raise and make all non-working people cheaper to hire.
Taken together these steps would spur growth in economic activity, growth in employment and growth in wages.
And oh by the way, Krugman's favorite idea which is to borrow money and spend it on infrastructure will not work because:
1. There is an opportunity cost to the borrowed money equal to at least the amount borrowed.
2. The present value of the interest payments is equal to the amount borrowed.
3. It is not clear that there is a positive return in terms of productivity to an investment in infrastructure.
1. Eliminating the corporate income tax entirely. That would bring home the $2T that is being held by corporations, make America the best place to start and operate a business and cause companies to start relocating into this country instead of leaving.
2. Cut the capital gains rate specifically on stocks (private and public) of companies with headquarters in the USA. This would spur investment in new companies.
3. Cut marginal income tax rates back sown to 28%. This would but more money in the hands of high income people allowing them to invest in the attractive companies with the attractive capital gains treatment.
4. Eliminate the 15.3% payroll tax and replace it with an 8.5% national sales tax. This would replace a tax on working with a tax on consumption. It would give all working people a raise and make all non-working people cheaper to hire.
Taken together these steps would spur growth in economic activity, growth in employment and growth in wages.
And oh by the way, Krugman's favorite idea which is to borrow money and spend it on infrastructure will not work because:
1. There is an opportunity cost to the borrowed money equal to at least the amount borrowed.
2. The present value of the interest payments is equal to the amount borrowed.
3. It is not clear that there is a positive return in terms of productivity to an investment in infrastructure.
1
Never underestimate the power of giving the rich even more money! Surely they will save us!
1
If you don't have a customer base for a product, you don't make it. Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy will reduce the customer base. These proposals might increase investment in industries overseas where the real customer base is, but with no customers at home no one will build at home.
I saw a film Equity last night which depicts the greed and destructiveness of Wall Street. This economy is controlled by the rich for the rich. Can we reasonably expect Mrs. Clinton to change anything given her very close connection to Wall Street and the money she has received from those people?
5
Very close relationship with wallstreet? We're is your proof that Hillary is in any pocket of these people than any other political figure. Elizabeth Warren, a wallstreet Nemesis has whole heartedly endorsed Hillary. I find it rather odd that this kind of troll language continues sans proof or intelligence. The fact of getting paid for speaking to these groups in no way is proof that they somehow "Own" her influences.
1
As a former AUSA under a democrat and as a life long democrat this is hardly a troll comment. It is a realistic assessment of the facts. Have you forgotten that under Bill Clinton Glass-Stegal was repealed and NAFTA enacted.
1
Steven, Let's stop flogging the idea that Bill Clinton deregulated the financial market.
1. Bill Clinton did NOT repeal Glass-Steagall. The name of the bill that DID repeal it was The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, good Republicans all. On Nov 4 1999 that bill was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. A veto would have been fruitless.
2. Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act was passed by adding a footnote in the dead of night to a conference report on an 11,000 page appropriations bill AFTER the conference had been completed. The bill was never sent to committee, never voted on in committee, never brought to the floor, and nobody knew it was there when they voted on the necessary appropriation bill. I guess you blame that on Bill, too.
1. Bill Clinton did NOT repeal Glass-Steagall. The name of the bill that DID repeal it was The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, good Republicans all. On Nov 4 1999 that bill was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. A veto would have been fruitless.
2. Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act was passed by adding a footnote in the dead of night to a conference report on an 11,000 page appropriations bill AFTER the conference had been completed. The bill was never sent to committee, never voted on in committee, never brought to the floor, and nobody knew it was there when they voted on the necessary appropriation bill. I guess you blame that on Bill, too.
Clinton is one of the weakest Democratic Presidential nominees in history. All talk talk talk.
If she is elected, the first thing she should do is, bring back the federal income tax rates of the Eisenhower years. At least 70% tax on ALL income of the wealthiest people (this means Soros, Blankfein, Zuckerberg, the Koch brothers and thousands of others). And all bonuses of bank and corporate executives should be taxed at a rate of 95%.
Additionally, all corporations that set up their headquarters in other countries, should be heavily penalized on their profits, regardless of where those profits are generated.
The income generated after one year will be more than enough to pay for health care for ALL, and there will be a surplus that can pay for much needed infrastructure upgrades.
But she won't do anything of the sort - she's beholden (a slave) to the Wall Street bankers and corporate executives.
If she is elected, the first thing she should do is, bring back the federal income tax rates of the Eisenhower years. At least 70% tax on ALL income of the wealthiest people (this means Soros, Blankfein, Zuckerberg, the Koch brothers and thousands of others). And all bonuses of bank and corporate executives should be taxed at a rate of 95%.
Additionally, all corporations that set up their headquarters in other countries, should be heavily penalized on their profits, regardless of where those profits are generated.
The income generated after one year will be more than enough to pay for health care for ALL, and there will be a surplus that can pay for much needed infrastructure upgrades.
But she won't do anything of the sort - she's beholden (a slave) to the Wall Street bankers and corporate executives.
4
Apparently you have no clue as to the math involved in the progressive tax rate. Any number close to your 70% claim would only fall on predetermined amounts over a cutoff figure. For example Eisenhower's 70% or even 90% was never levied on ALL a person's income. Only that part over something like $40million in today's dollars. The lower income numbers were graduated at intervals starting at the exact same rate as everyone else, from the janitor to the secretary until it got larger. Then the rate went up a few % points at designated figures. So the greater a person's income the more percentages were added on in small increments. In today's outlandish wealth I and most Americans would have very little problem with a 70% rate over a $60 million income. The Number of $Billionaires is over 500 in the Nation as we discuss this today. How many $Billions can anyone spend in a lifetime. One guy is running for President. One day the $Billionaire will not be mentally ill and will just buy his or her way into turning the country into their private Dictatorship. Happy times.
1
Yes, C. Coffey, I know all about the "progressive tax rate" of which you write. My point is, Clinton will not even approach the higher figures. She'll limit the highest tax on the wealthiest individuals at no more than 30%. It should be at least 70%. As Eisenhower said, the wealthy should pay more,
And I also suggest completely eliminating Federal income taxes on any individual with income under $100,000.
And I also suggest completely eliminating Federal income taxes on any individual with income under $100,000.
1
Explain why wall st bonuses should be taxed at 95%?? Sure, it's easy to demonize the CEO who gets a $100m package, but the vast majority of people on wall street getting "bonuses" are average people working desk jobs, supporting families, spending money in the economy, paying back student loans, and reinvesting in safe assets for retirement. Most people on wall st aren't making millions. Bonuses are a fair part of their comp, and many get them in restricted stock anyways. What's the rationale for massive taxes on those who aren't the very very top of that food chain? There isn't.
Trump overwhelmed all the other Republican candidates; that he now seems ridiculous compared to Clinton elevates rather than diminishes her.
7
And the plan to pay off the national debt accumulated in the last 8 years?
2
Um, where is Donald Trump's plan to pay down the debt? His plan will increase it astronomically. Why are Democrats ALWAYS required to do things and be better that Republicans never are?
I suppose this person has no debt, paid cash for their house, car, etc. Most likely not. I agree with Mr. Krugman. Let's take advantage of low interest rates to perform much needed repairs / improvements to infrastructure in America. That's what I did when the steps in front of my house became a safety hazard to anyone coming to my house.
I suppose this person has no debt, paid cash for their house, car, etc. Most likely not. I agree with Mr. Krugman. Let's take advantage of low interest rates to perform much needed repairs / improvements to infrastructure in America. That's what I did when the steps in front of my house became a safety hazard to anyone coming to my house.
When there is an over abundance , when demand cannot justify production and things that really need doing cannot conform to the profit motive then economic growth is not welcome it is insanity.
What happened in Greece was that Germany needed Greece to buy far more than Greece needed Germany to sell. Germany's folly was to not forgive the debt entirely and begin again but to insist on repayment when what Germany needed was for Greek demand to continue ad infinitum.
We can eat better than any Emperor in history, we live longer healthier lives, we listen to music played by the best musicians, we have an unlimited supply of entertainment and we are willing to sacrifice it all to grow an all too big and powerful economy.
We want full workforce participation while we have far too much stuff even as we lack the volunteers in our community to many our lives more secure, our schools a safer more secure environment for growth and institutions less lonely and less psychological destructive.
We need fewer malls and more public spaces, we need safe neighbourhoods, we need clean lakes and rivers, we need places to walk with clean air and less noise, we need time to hug our children, we need time to listen to our better inner voices. We need to plant gardens, interact with our pets, affirm the existence of of those closest to us.
The economy is sucking all courage and wisdom out of us, the economy is our religion and it gives power and influence to those that would destroy us.
What happened in Greece was that Germany needed Greece to buy far more than Greece needed Germany to sell. Germany's folly was to not forgive the debt entirely and begin again but to insist on repayment when what Germany needed was for Greek demand to continue ad infinitum.
We can eat better than any Emperor in history, we live longer healthier lives, we listen to music played by the best musicians, we have an unlimited supply of entertainment and we are willing to sacrifice it all to grow an all too big and powerful economy.
We want full workforce participation while we have far too much stuff even as we lack the volunteers in our community to many our lives more secure, our schools a safer more secure environment for growth and institutions less lonely and less psychological destructive.
We need fewer malls and more public spaces, we need safe neighbourhoods, we need clean lakes and rivers, we need places to walk with clean air and less noise, we need time to hug our children, we need time to listen to our better inner voices. We need to plant gardens, interact with our pets, affirm the existence of of those closest to us.
The economy is sucking all courage and wisdom out of us, the economy is our religion and it gives power and influence to those that would destroy us.
15
Great comment Moe. Thanks.
3
Thanks C.
I am sorry though I did not have the heart to wake up my editor at 6AM. We have more than enough work for everyone but jobs may son be an historical memory.
"There were no jobs: hitting a tree with a stick was already a good job."
Mel Brooks The Two Thousand Year Old Man
I am sorry though I did not have the heart to wake up my editor at 6AM. We have more than enough work for everyone but jobs may son be an historical memory.
"There were no jobs: hitting a tree with a stick was already a good job."
Mel Brooks The Two Thousand Year Old Man
2
More Keynesian hogwash. Obama will leave office as the $20 trillion dollar man. He has accumulated more debt than every other U.S. President combined. Is there ever a situation where a Keynesian voodoo economist is ever concerned about the national debt?
2
To suggest an answer to your question--
Maybe when the interest rate on debt, when accounting for inflation, is over 1 percent? Then I'd be quaking in my boots. :)
Maybe when the interest rate on debt, when accounting for inflation, is over 1 percent? Then I'd be quaking in my boots. :)
Actually Dr Krugman the New York Times is playing against its usual presidential year strategy. The Times almost always focuses on everything the the Democratic nominee says or does while simultaneously giving the Republican candidate minimal coverage. This time the reverse is true-- Republican candidate Donald Trump has totally swamped his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton when it comes to coverage in the Times. On the Times front page I can now count on seeing at least 4 or 5 stories with the name 'Trump" in boldface type. In the primaries Donald Trump, the most over the top Republican presidential nominee in memory, obliterated those "sensible moderate conservatives" Dr Krugman is so nostalgic for without breaking into a sweat. No one is in the mood to be moderate or sensible these days as we swelter through this oppressive August heat.
1
Let me suggest that the problem the GOP has with any sensible plan is the paying for it part. The Party's philosophy is to cut taxes and then claim we don't have any money for what they don't deem important, so they take money for food and education from children to pay for their desires, usually spending on the Military and Corporate subsidies.
9
I suggest we all, and especially those in government and business, stop trying to manage and man-handle every second of every heartbeat of the economy according to some self-conceived dictates. It's akin to trying to manage every breath your body automatically takes. Commanding it when, and how much air, to breathe for instance. And tasking the heart with beating "exactly so and no more or less." It's a pointless, irrelevant task, and a tremendous waste of conscious energy.
But I'm not saying this means government and business isn't obligated to the overall health of the economy. They certainly are in their fashion. But keeping with the analogy they should be engaged in things akin to what we do individually to maintain our physical health. Exercise to maintain the body's physical capabilities; government should be - as noted by others here - involved in much the same in all the various infrastructure and systems maintenance needed by the body economic.
Outside of that leave the body alone. It will be juuuust fine. Doing this can allow you to put your focus on other things...like future-oriented prosperity for your progeny; those inevitable inheritors of that which you do today. All those things consciousness does in riding along within a fully functioning, dynamic self-correcting body. Simplistic? Yes...in it's fashion...but an ideal government should adhere to? Absolutely.
John~
American Net'Zen
But I'm not saying this means government and business isn't obligated to the overall health of the economy. They certainly are in their fashion. But keeping with the analogy they should be engaged in things akin to what we do individually to maintain our physical health. Exercise to maintain the body's physical capabilities; government should be - as noted by others here - involved in much the same in all the various infrastructure and systems maintenance needed by the body economic.
Outside of that leave the body alone. It will be juuuust fine. Doing this can allow you to put your focus on other things...like future-oriented prosperity for your progeny; those inevitable inheritors of that which you do today. All those things consciousness does in riding along within a fully functioning, dynamic self-correcting body. Simplistic? Yes...in it's fashion...but an ideal government should adhere to? Absolutely.
John~
American Net'Zen
1
Infrastructure projects I would love to see:
1. Revamped high speed rail to improve the rickety Amtrak system currently puttering up the Northeast corridor (maybe run it from Maine to Florida).
2. Rebuild Penn Station. The current station is a stinky basement whose layout fosters chaotic crowds. It's a fire disaster waiting to happen.
3. Significant federal and state subsidies for all homeowners to insulate their homes, upgrade windows, install light colored roofs, and purchase energy efficient appliances.
4. Federal programs to make wind and solar as efficient and acceptable and affordable as possible for homeowner's.
5. Build sidewalks and bike lanes all over the place to get Americans exercising and alleviate traffic and carbon emissions.
6. Build as much green space and plant as many trees as possible in America's major cities to offer some respite from the asphalt absorbing heat.
7. Develop new building codes that account for sea level rise and flooding. Assume that it will happen and deal with it now.
These are things that would make me an optimistic American confident that my government is progressive and forward looking!
1. Revamped high speed rail to improve the rickety Amtrak system currently puttering up the Northeast corridor (maybe run it from Maine to Florida).
2. Rebuild Penn Station. The current station is a stinky basement whose layout fosters chaotic crowds. It's a fire disaster waiting to happen.
3. Significant federal and state subsidies for all homeowners to insulate their homes, upgrade windows, install light colored roofs, and purchase energy efficient appliances.
4. Federal programs to make wind and solar as efficient and acceptable and affordable as possible for homeowner's.
5. Build sidewalks and bike lanes all over the place to get Americans exercising and alleviate traffic and carbon emissions.
6. Build as much green space and plant as many trees as possible in America's major cities to offer some respite from the asphalt absorbing heat.
7. Develop new building codes that account for sea level rise and flooding. Assume that it will happen and deal with it now.
These are things that would make me an optimistic American confident that my government is progressive and forward looking!
14
These are great. Let's add:
8. Upgrade, modernize, and repair every road and bridge in America.
9. Build a new energy grid using smart grid technology.
10. Invest in solar, wind, and other renewable energy infrastructure in public-private partnerships with the power companies.
11. Hyperloop, hyperloop, hyperloop!
8. Upgrade, modernize, and repair every road and bridge in America.
9. Build a new energy grid using smart grid technology.
10. Invest in solar, wind, and other renewable energy infrastructure in public-private partnerships with the power companies.
11. Hyperloop, hyperloop, hyperloop!
2
It was amusing, last week, to hear Donald Trump borrow from Paul Krugman and urge that America borrow to invest in infrastructure renewal now because of the current low interest rates on government bonds. It was the first time we have heard anything sensible from the man – Trump, not Krugman.
Hillary Clinton is doing just fine in describing her economic plan, although a bit more discussion about the moral and good-business reasons for helping the poor would be good to hear.
Get ready, however, for more copy-cat proposals from a desperate Trump, to the secret chagrin of Paul Ryan and other Republicans who know that their cherished tax cuts for the rich are endangered.
In the meantime, it’s nice to have some break in the insults and calls for violence. We may even enjoy a few days of watching the G.O.P. squirm about Paul Manafort and The Russian Connection.
Hillary Clinton is doing just fine in describing her economic plan, although a bit more discussion about the moral and good-business reasons for helping the poor would be good to hear.
Get ready, however, for more copy-cat proposals from a desperate Trump, to the secret chagrin of Paul Ryan and other Republicans who know that their cherished tax cuts for the rich are endangered.
In the meantime, it’s nice to have some break in the insults and calls for violence. We may even enjoy a few days of watching the G.O.P. squirm about Paul Manafort and The Russian Connection.
8
Mrs. Clinton's proposals to increase high income tax rates , tighten financial regulation and strengthening of social net are admirable.
They have absolutely no chance of being approved by Congress.
The House will probably remain Republican.
The Republicans will certainly have at least 41 votes in the Senate needed to filibuster.
Mrs. Clinton should be a little more specific about her proposals.
Why doesn't she support the restoration of the Glass Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking.
Why does she oppose raising the salary cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax.
They have absolutely no chance of being approved by Congress.
The House will probably remain Republican.
The Republicans will certainly have at least 41 votes in the Senate needed to filibuster.
Mrs. Clinton should be a little more specific about her proposals.
Why doesn't she support the restoration of the Glass Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking.
Why does she oppose raising the salary cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax.
6
Most advocate's for Glass-Steagell don't know the modern history of how watered down it had become under the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. The big, really blatant crime came about during Cheney-Bush when the SEC regulators were basically defunded to a paltry number. Check the Bernie Madoff story about how he survived during those end years. Even during President Bill Clinton's terms the republican controlled Congress kept chipping away at any and all agency's departments of inspectors, regulators, and firewall consumer protectors. So let's stop pretending that somehow this one 1930's Act was the end all be all in how we ended up in the Great Recession. Much more was at play.
2
While repeal of GS may not have been the sole cause of the Great Recession , repeal of GS made it worse.
RE instatement of GS would help prevent another great recession.
For that reason I think GS should be re instated and Mrs. Clinton should support re instatement.
RE instatement of GS would help prevent another great recession.
For that reason I think GS should be re instated and Mrs. Clinton should support re instatement.
1
Great to see Reinhold Niebuhr surface in an economics column. In the 1990s, Soviet communism lost the fight for global dominance, but then unrestrained capitalism jumped in to fill the void, chanting USA USA USA…
Ronald Reagan told us that government is the problem. His party set about proving it.
Good economic policy must rest on good social policy or it rests on folly. Much of the history of Europe tells of nationalistic and dynastic struggles over trade, i.e., the enrichment of the powerful. The Dutch were great seafarers and exploited African colonies and slaves at an early date. The Spanish were good sailors and became vastly rich with plunder from the New World. They saw the Dutch as competitors, and therefore as enemies. Their wars gave Europe the Spanish Netherlands and gave France claustrophobia, leading to more war.
Dynasties are gone and national boundaries are porous. The pirates of capitalism are caught in a cleft stick of their own making: by exploiting the cheapest of labor world-wide, they've impoverished much of their consumer base. Growth is a golden calf of the modern age. While waiting for the sages to tell us what replaces it, we’d better set about making sure we’re all on the same team. As said long ago: if we don’t hang together we’ll hang separately.
Ronald Reagan told us that government is the problem. His party set about proving it.
Good economic policy must rest on good social policy or it rests on folly. Much of the history of Europe tells of nationalistic and dynastic struggles over trade, i.e., the enrichment of the powerful. The Dutch were great seafarers and exploited African colonies and slaves at an early date. The Spanish were good sailors and became vastly rich with plunder from the New World. They saw the Dutch as competitors, and therefore as enemies. Their wars gave Europe the Spanish Netherlands and gave France claustrophobia, leading to more war.
Dynasties are gone and national boundaries are porous. The pirates of capitalism are caught in a cleft stick of their own making: by exploiting the cheapest of labor world-wide, they've impoverished much of their consumer base. Growth is a golden calf of the modern age. While waiting for the sages to tell us what replaces it, we’d better set about making sure we’re all on the same team. As said long ago: if we don’t hang together we’ll hang separately.
9
Dr. Krugman, you have been taking the parallax view of Hillary Clinton for over a year now. The fact that the extremists and know-nothings in the right wing of this country have moved so far to the right should not alter what has traditionally been considered the center. The Clintons have always been, and remain to this day, to the right of the center on many issues, especially on policies concerning the military, economy, and domestic and international commerce. They have always been late-comers to issues involving gay rights, the minimum wage, and affordable health care policies like single payer or the public option, waiting until the inevitable winds of change make it a political necessity to evolve.
Hillary is far more comfortable making promises to a Republican from Goldman-Sachs than to a Bernie Sanders supporter from what is, ostensibly, her own party.
This is not to say that she is not the better choice in the election when weighed against Donald Trump. It is to say that you need a reality check on your impression of Hillary Clinton and the responsibility that real liberals have in holding her to the left of center, instead of closing our eyes as she reverts to her right of center proclivities.
Hillary is far more comfortable making promises to a Republican from Goldman-Sachs than to a Bernie Sanders supporter from what is, ostensibly, her own party.
This is not to say that she is not the better choice in the election when weighed against Donald Trump. It is to say that you need a reality check on your impression of Hillary Clinton and the responsibility that real liberals have in holding her to the left of center, instead of closing our eyes as she reverts to her right of center proclivities.
4
Hillary Clinton's proposals are indeed modest. But are they doable as Paul Krugman suggests? I have some serious reservations.
Mrs. Clinton's outreach to Republicans seems to be helping her chances of winning the White House. That is a good thing. Her outreach is just too much of a good thing. She is not holding the Republicans accountable for Donald Trump, she is arguing that Donald Trump is just a populist phenomenon that is at odds with Republicans. That not only helps Mrs. Clinton's chances of victory, it also helps Republican Senate and House candidates in their quest for victory.
When Hillary Clinton wins in November, she almost surely face a Republican House and likely a Republican Senate as well. The Republicans in Congress will believe that Republican values triumphed in their districts and states. They will return to Washington ready and eager to confront President H. Clinton just as they have confronted President Obama determined to perpetuate gridlock and make Hillary Clinton a one-term President.
This election is an opportunity to hold Republicans accountable for their policies and it is being lost.
Mrs. Clinton's outreach to Republicans seems to be helping her chances of winning the White House. That is a good thing. Her outreach is just too much of a good thing. She is not holding the Republicans accountable for Donald Trump, she is arguing that Donald Trump is just a populist phenomenon that is at odds with Republicans. That not only helps Mrs. Clinton's chances of victory, it also helps Republican Senate and House candidates in their quest for victory.
When Hillary Clinton wins in November, she almost surely face a Republican House and likely a Republican Senate as well. The Republicans in Congress will believe that Republican values triumphed in their districts and states. They will return to Washington ready and eager to confront President H. Clinton just as they have confronted President Obama determined to perpetuate gridlock and make Hillary Clinton a one-term President.
This election is an opportunity to hold Republicans accountable for their policies and it is being lost.
2
Reality and history are really good measuring sticks.
Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both raised taxes and the economy flourished.
Republican President Bush slashed taxes, ignored fraud and greed on Wall St. and walked a Great Depression down the aisle.
Governor Sam Brownback's trickle-down fraud is currently bankrupting Kansas.
Former Governor Bobby Jindal's trickle-down fraud blew a massive hole in the Louisiana budget.
Every Republican nihilist relies upon the magical suspension of disbelief and disregard of basic math as the economic linchpin when they promote the widely discredited snake oil of trickle-down economics.
The latest Republican economic fraud is the push to repeal the estate tax, the single most progressive part of the American tax code, a tax that only the top 0.2% (multimillionaires and billionaires) pay.
Republicans believe that 'poor' billionaires are holding back the economy, never mind those other 320 million Americans who can't afford much due to 350:1 CEO:worker wage theft and 0.1% tax preferences that would make any Grinch proud.
Donald Trump's proposed tax plan, like all Republican tax plans, would torpedo the national budget for the love of 0.1% Greed Over People, but more importantly for Trump supporters, if Trump "becomes president we're all going to be saying Merry Christmas again."
That's the kind of nincompoop leadership America so desperately needs.
Make America A White Christmas Again: Donald Trump 2016
Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both raised taxes and the economy flourished.
Republican President Bush slashed taxes, ignored fraud and greed on Wall St. and walked a Great Depression down the aisle.
Governor Sam Brownback's trickle-down fraud is currently bankrupting Kansas.
Former Governor Bobby Jindal's trickle-down fraud blew a massive hole in the Louisiana budget.
Every Republican nihilist relies upon the magical suspension of disbelief and disregard of basic math as the economic linchpin when they promote the widely discredited snake oil of trickle-down economics.
The latest Republican economic fraud is the push to repeal the estate tax, the single most progressive part of the American tax code, a tax that only the top 0.2% (multimillionaires and billionaires) pay.
Republicans believe that 'poor' billionaires are holding back the economy, never mind those other 320 million Americans who can't afford much due to 350:1 CEO:worker wage theft and 0.1% tax preferences that would make any Grinch proud.
Donald Trump's proposed tax plan, like all Republican tax plans, would torpedo the national budget for the love of 0.1% Greed Over People, but more importantly for Trump supporters, if Trump "becomes president we're all going to be saying Merry Christmas again."
That's the kind of nincompoop leadership America so desperately needs.
Make America A White Christmas Again: Donald Trump 2016
494
“Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both raised taxes and the economy flourished. Republican President Bush slashed taxes … and walked a Great Depression down the aisle.”
This is nothing other than the “Balanced Budget Multiplier” from Macroeconomics 101.
If taxes are raised by half a trillion dollars, and spending goes up by an equal amount, the economy grows by a half a trillion dollars. The unemployment rate decreases and salaries increase.
If taxes are lowered by half a trillion dollars, and spending is cut by an equal amount in order not to increase the deficit (and the debt), the economy shrinks by a half a trillion dollars. The unemployment rate increases and salaries decrease.
This is nothing other than the “Balanced Budget Multiplier” from Macroeconomics 101.
If taxes are raised by half a trillion dollars, and spending goes up by an equal amount, the economy grows by a half a trillion dollars. The unemployment rate decreases and salaries increase.
If taxes are lowered by half a trillion dollars, and spending is cut by an equal amount in order not to increase the deficit (and the debt), the economy shrinks by a half a trillion dollars. The unemployment rate increases and salaries decrease.
2
Yes, we must once and for all vanquish the shockingly long-lived "trickle down" zombie and re-establish dependable wage hikes in the service sector akin to the hike our grandparents enjoyed in manufacturing.
We've been sacrificed at the altar of productivity and "shareholder value" to the point of deflation perhaps becoming unstoppable!
We've been sacrificed at the altar of productivity and "shareholder value" to the point of deflation perhaps becoming unstoppable!
1
It's even worse than that. W used the little-known Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to stop state attorneys general from stepping in to halt predatory lending in the run-up to the housing crisis.
In doing this he let the bubble run and darn near brought the world's economies down.
The GOP - never listening to sound advice; always eager to listen to their paymasters.
They don't belong in Congress; they belong in jail.
In doing this he let the bubble run and darn near brought the world's economies down.
The GOP - never listening to sound advice; always eager to listen to their paymasters.
They don't belong in Congress; they belong in jail.
2
I think the biggest change since earlier decades of faster growth, aside from shifting demographics, is the massive increase in household debt. Initially, rising debt helped spur more economic growth. But now debt ratios are so high that people can't really borrow much more. And without debt to fuel growth, well, how do we grow faster? How do you pay for ever-more expensive houses, cars, and education if you have to borrow to buy them but your debt is already sky high?
2
We need to sustain some growth while ensuring that recent economic gains are more equitably distributed. However, the US is not an economic island; with tepid or worse economies in Europe and our other main trading partners, we'll never get those real breakthrough years. And that is not a function of policy, but of the realities of the world economy.
And those who'd shut us off from the world have no more effective solution; for every made-in-US tv that we pay 2x the Korean price, a farmer in Indiana or Iowa will lose his export market for pork or chicken, and an engineering firm in San Francisco will lose a major design contract.
And those who'd shut us off from the world have no more effective solution; for every made-in-US tv that we pay 2x the Korean price, a farmer in Indiana or Iowa will lose his export market for pork or chicken, and an engineering firm in San Francisco will lose a major design contract.
4
"...are more equitably distributed."
Oh yeah, that inequality thing. Here's the inequality "solution" you're suggesting:
LeBron James is one of the greatest basketball players in the world. I'm totally not. That's an "inequality" and we need to "redistribute" that "wealth". How do we do that? Well, we could tie one of his hands behind his back - actually, he'd probably still beat me. So, we could make him play in a wheelchair. No, he'd probably still beat me. What's left?
Breaking his arms and legs.
That's your proposal, in actual terms, for "more equitably distributed."
Leftists, Progressives, and Socialists: They always want to destroy.
Oh yeah, that inequality thing. Here's the inequality "solution" you're suggesting:
LeBron James is one of the greatest basketball players in the world. I'm totally not. That's an "inequality" and we need to "redistribute" that "wealth". How do we do that? Well, we could tie one of his hands behind his back - actually, he'd probably still beat me. So, we could make him play in a wheelchair. No, he'd probably still beat me. What's left?
Breaking his arms and legs.
That's your proposal, in actual terms, for "more equitably distributed."
Leftists, Progressives, and Socialists: They always want to destroy.
2
Why are we exporting pork and chicken with the resulting environmental damage? Every time I think of the pools of waste from corporate agriculture, it makes me sick. Our farms should support us. And the rest of the world can grow their own pork and chicken. We should also go back to real food for us and the chickens. Remember when we were feeding animals to animals back in the days of the mad cow scare. Export oriented (mass produced ) animals is a symptom of the bottom line always being profit; never a decent world for people to live in.
We should regulate companies that are pursuing profits at the expense of us and our planet. They're insidious, especially the gene-splicing ones. They're always looking to make a killing, and sadly that's literally the outcome of their greed.
We should regulate companies that are pursuing profits at the expense of us and our planet. They're insidious, especially the gene-splicing ones. They're always looking to make a killing, and sadly that's literally the outcome of their greed.
The agricultural sector of our economy is mostly run by the Government. Farmers in the 1920s demanded the government set high prices on food, and then during the Great Depression demanded that prices be fixed with a floor. FDR established an agency which (a) paid farmers to NOT produce, (b) paid for what they did produce to supply Welfare recipients, and (c) destroyed any "extra" food that farmers produced. This was eloquently captured in "The Grapes of Wrath".
This is YOUR GOVERNMENT, and its actions. If you want to regulate something, start with that. Oh, and one of the obscene results of the government's actions was to destroy small-time farming, and give you the "Corporate" agriculture you detest. Congratulations, you got what you wanted.
This is YOUR GOVERNMENT, and its actions. If you want to regulate something, start with that. Oh, and one of the obscene results of the government's actions was to destroy small-time farming, and give you the "Corporate" agriculture you detest. Congratulations, you got what you wanted.
1
Our familiarity and interrelationship to basic economics has been extrapolated into an all knowing wisdom of just how complex economic systems work. It is refreshing to see a Nobel Prize winner explain that we really don't know all that much.
Each period in history and the resulting economic environment has its own unique DNA. It is only in retrospect that we can explain possible causes and effects of both nations and individual actions.
To the Serenity Prayer reference it might be useful to also remember a truism from the medical profession----'first do no harm'. Perhaps if we followed that dictum, we might advocate solutions with less hyperbole and more sensible restraint and caution.
Each period in history and the resulting economic environment has its own unique DNA. It is only in retrospect that we can explain possible causes and effects of both nations and individual actions.
To the Serenity Prayer reference it might be useful to also remember a truism from the medical profession----'first do no harm'. Perhaps if we followed that dictum, we might advocate solutions with less hyperbole and more sensible restraint and caution.
6
I'm no economist. I don't know squat about long-run economic growth. I don't make many decisions based on my gut reaction, but my gut (as well as my mind) tells me I don't want a hair-head for president. I don't want a president making decisions (economic or otherwise) high and brain-dead on his in-haled clouds of hairspray.
I'm not voting for president based on long-run economic growth policies. The simple test for my gut is, I don't want a president who makes me want to vomit every time I see him. The careful test for my mind is, I want a president I know, based on her documented experience, intelligence, fortitude, persistence, and policies, who can lead America and the free world.
As to the rest of the Republican field of presidential candidates, they were Trump-dumped and put to political-rest; which is what we need to do with the rest of the Republican candidates across the nation.
Vote in November to put Republicans to political-rest; your gut will thank you, your mind will reassure you and long-run economic growth will have a chance.
I'm not voting for president based on long-run economic growth policies. The simple test for my gut is, I don't want a president who makes me want to vomit every time I see him. The careful test for my mind is, I want a president I know, based on her documented experience, intelligence, fortitude, persistence, and policies, who can lead America and the free world.
As to the rest of the Republican field of presidential candidates, they were Trump-dumped and put to political-rest; which is what we need to do with the rest of the Republican candidates across the nation.
Vote in November to put Republicans to political-rest; your gut will thank you, your mind will reassure you and long-run economic growth will have a chance.
19
So i know of a way to pay for the minimum wage increase and boost the bottom line of most Americans. It is easy. All that is need to do is eliminate the cut-off on the FICA tax. By doing this you could lower the rate, which would be able to offset the pay hike. At the same time it would give about 95% of the our citizens more money to spend! We all know what happens when we have more money to spend.
1
Is there ever such a thing a government doing less. Even a little less. How about less taxes not more? Can there be any room at all for that at any level of government?
1
While there are many 'solutions' offered here and elsewhere that make sense. I believe investing in education, including higher education, will make a big impact on some of what we are identified as shortcomings of the economy now.
Even if students attend a public university the debt can be staggering. At the beginning of one's career, pay is typically low. Aggressive collection to repay debt means for many a mean life at a critical time in their young lives.
In my opinion, the investment in education that does not burden emerging students into the economy with debt will have a positive effect on demand for goods and services that can actually be paid for out of earnings.
Even if students attend a public university the debt can be staggering. At the beginning of one's career, pay is typically low. Aggressive collection to repay debt means for many a mean life at a critical time in their young lives.
In my opinion, the investment in education that does not burden emerging students into the economy with debt will have a positive effect on demand for goods and services that can actually be paid for out of earnings.
2
Innovation! Triple the SBIR budget and get Universities to teach people how to understand USPTO process and knowhow. Subsidies, startups, enterprise knowhow with teeth. Teach children how to organize themselfs to be motivated towards free cash flow and cash reserve. Invent! Think!
2
If the Republican opposition in the next Congress – assuming they can maintain their majority, continues to stone wall each and every initiative of the next President, presumably to be Hillary Clinton, the question for the American public then will be: When will the boat once again hit the rocks?
www.InquiryAbraham.com
www.InquiryAbraham.com
3
This is a great column for candidly admitting the progressive outlook on the economy. A growth rate of 1.5% is the best we can do while maintaining our current level of entitlement spending. The prospect of 4.0% growth is "ludicrous." And the 1%, already paying nearly 50% of all taxes, should just shut up and pay more. This outlook, of course, ignores the fact that a pro-growth agenda would do far more to help the less fortunate than any government program. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “What the honorable member is saying is that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.”
2
Let's continue to reject, fully, the Clinton myths.
In fact she's an outstanding candidate, fully and still worthy of the quotable line from the NYT endorsement; she is ""one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history."
I supported her 8 years ago and while I've come to appreciate Obama's many positives, I've never regretted my support for her.
In fact she's an outstanding candidate, fully and still worthy of the quotable line from the NYT endorsement; she is ""one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history."
I supported her 8 years ago and while I've come to appreciate Obama's many positives, I've never regretted my support for her.
9
Monetary policy of the last 16 years has been shown not to work very well in the broader economy. That is printing money, ultra low low interest rates and lowering taxes has been a failure over the long term even if it has given the economy jolts of a high, about as useful as jolt of heroin to the longterm life of an addict.
Intelligent infrastructure projects that are not mainly pork barrel bridges to nowhere are needed to stimulate the economy and help raise interest rates.
Raising taxes on the super rich will not be helpful without tax reform first. The super rich and most large American corporation do not pay the current tax rate in any case. However; raising the tax rate on the super rich will increase jobs for creative tax lawyers and accountants. A worrisome issue is the demographic change of an aging population that has been known by private, academic and government economist for about 40- 50 years. It raises the question of why we are not better prepared for the aging baby boomers.
Last but not least the ability of economists to take measure of the broader economy is not working. The out come of free trade deals on lmany people have not been properly measured. Economists need meaures of different segments and income groups of the economy, to better assess the results of government policies. The vast majority of economists were caught by surprise on results of the collapse of manufacturing economy to large segments of folks in the USA in the last 30 to 40 years.
Intelligent infrastructure projects that are not mainly pork barrel bridges to nowhere are needed to stimulate the economy and help raise interest rates.
Raising taxes on the super rich will not be helpful without tax reform first. The super rich and most large American corporation do not pay the current tax rate in any case. However; raising the tax rate on the super rich will increase jobs for creative tax lawyers and accountants. A worrisome issue is the demographic change of an aging population that has been known by private, academic and government economist for about 40- 50 years. It raises the question of why we are not better prepared for the aging baby boomers.
Last but not least the ability of economists to take measure of the broader economy is not working. The out come of free trade deals on lmany people have not been properly measured. Economists need meaures of different segments and income groups of the economy, to better assess the results of government policies. The vast majority of economists were caught by surprise on results of the collapse of manufacturing economy to large segments of folks in the USA in the last 30 to 40 years.
1
Supporting Dr K's premise are the following:
What drives growth in GDP ?
1) Consumption by domestic population.
2) Exports.
3) Inflation.
Population Growth: Since 2009, population growth in US has been between .44% and .80%. It has been holding steady at about .74% and .80% the past four years. 10 years before that, it grew at approx 1%. In the 1990's it grew about 1.2% per year.
Exports: The US economy is red hot versus the rest of the world. With our strong dollar, export growth is also flat.
Inflation: Under 2%.
Domestic Infrastructure Spending is also down.
What drives growth in GDP ?
1) Consumption by domestic population.
2) Exports.
3) Inflation.
Population Growth: Since 2009, population growth in US has been between .44% and .80%. It has been holding steady at about .74% and .80% the past four years. 10 years before that, it grew at approx 1%. In the 1990's it grew about 1.2% per year.
Exports: The US economy is red hot versus the rest of the world. With our strong dollar, export growth is also flat.
Inflation: Under 2%.
Domestic Infrastructure Spending is also down.
"When conservatives promise fantastic growth if we give them another chance at Bushonomics, one main reason is that they don’t want to admit how much they would have to cut popular programs to pay for their tax cuts."
If you examine every single Trump economic premise, the country would be bankrupt in a year. He excels at finding the weak point in every crowd, and promising to correct it, without ever really spelling out how. His promises to unemployed coal minders and steel workers are totally specious: he can't bring back their jobs by executive fiat, and yet he continues to promise this.
And if you examine his "economic speech" in Detroit, he rolls out the standard Ryan budget plan: steep tax cuts for the wealthy and really nothing for the middle class except, perhaps some "restructuring" of Social Security and Medicare, which translates into cuts.
Do his crowds take the time to study his platform? Do his crowds realize his fabled business background was built on the blood, sweat, and tears (when they don't get paid!) of workers like them? Do they even care that the only thing Trump cares about his Trump?
Everybody likes big promises until the piper needs to be paid. Hillary Clinton's economic plan isn't sexy, but it is doable. She addresses the very thing the Donald doesn't: solid help for displaced workers with retraining programs and the creation of infrastructure jobs with the help of private enterprise.
Sometimes, boring is beautiful.
If you examine every single Trump economic premise, the country would be bankrupt in a year. He excels at finding the weak point in every crowd, and promising to correct it, without ever really spelling out how. His promises to unemployed coal minders and steel workers are totally specious: he can't bring back their jobs by executive fiat, and yet he continues to promise this.
And if you examine his "economic speech" in Detroit, he rolls out the standard Ryan budget plan: steep tax cuts for the wealthy and really nothing for the middle class except, perhaps some "restructuring" of Social Security and Medicare, which translates into cuts.
Do his crowds take the time to study his platform? Do his crowds realize his fabled business background was built on the blood, sweat, and tears (when they don't get paid!) of workers like them? Do they even care that the only thing Trump cares about his Trump?
Everybody likes big promises until the piper needs to be paid. Hillary Clinton's economic plan isn't sexy, but it is doable. She addresses the very thing the Donald doesn't: solid help for displaced workers with retraining programs and the creation of infrastructure jobs with the help of private enterprise.
Sometimes, boring is beautiful.
26
But 1970 to 2000 maps well to the first half of a long economic wave of 50 to 60 years. It's the fifth K-wave in I history focused on Information and Telecommunications. In the first half of a K-wave you get increased spending on the infrastructure, plant and other necessities of the wave. It's an inflationary time and it employs lots of people. We are clearly into the second half of the wave in which we seek cost cutting through process innovation and automation which naturally leads to slower growth and surplus labor. The second half is where the investors in the first half make their returns. Sound familiar? It has happened like this 4-5 times since the Industrial Revolution. Humans have a hard time seeing this because 50-60 years represents a human work-life so when we get to this point too many know-nothings act like the sky is falling. Clionton's subliminal message is that we must get the country moving again and she's right about infrastructure. For comparison think about JFK, the Space Program, and an October speech in Allentown, Pennsylvania in late October 1960.
4
You're quite the economist, but you're no geographer. America's vast size makes healthcare savings moot compared to smaller countries with national health.
Geography also explains the economy and its potential. In the old days, before so-called 'globalization', towns existed because they had a purpose. Leadville, for instance.
Here's the solution: Allow smaller communities to borrow from the government to install wind turbines. Lower the price of electricity vastly for these communities, and dad can build something in his shed that can be sold.
Micro-manufacturing, I call it. It'll die here in the comments.
But hey, GDP, all that.
Geography also explains the economy and its potential. In the old days, before so-called 'globalization', towns existed because they had a purpose. Leadville, for instance.
Here's the solution: Allow smaller communities to borrow from the government to install wind turbines. Lower the price of electricity vastly for these communities, and dad can build something in his shed that can be sold.
Micro-manufacturing, I call it. It'll die here in the comments.
But hey, GDP, all that.
3
Paul Krugman tallks about a "somewhat mysterious decline in labor force participation among prime-age adults."
There's nothing mysterious about it. Middle-aged males who are laid off, or young women who take time off to raise a family, have almost no chance of being rehired in today's economy.
Once again, this comment shows how out-of-touch Krugman is with the real-world that most of us inhabit.
There's nothing mysterious about it. Middle-aged males who are laid off, or young women who take time off to raise a family, have almost no chance of being rehired in today's economy.
Once again, this comment shows how out-of-touch Krugman is with the real-world that most of us inhabit.
11
Hillary's plan will not work. It will mess things up even more. The problem is that too much money is spent on healthcare and not on other sectors of the economy. It is like a washing machine that is out of balance and all the money goes to one side and disrupts the system. Healthcare costs are projected to grow faster than the growth in GDP which means even more of the money will pile up into one side of the economy. The waste in healthcare is between $800 billion to $1 trillion a year. That is bigger than any economic stimulus program Hillary can imagine. By bring down the cost of healthcare we can afford a stimulus package every year instead of one every decade.
1
Good luck with bringing down healthcare costs. In order to do this we would have to stop spending money on extraordinary care, which is mostly at the end of life.
1
It's fair to say that whatever economic legislation President Clinton brings to Congress, the GOP do everything it can to avoid seen any of it passed, because it runs counter to their dogmatic assertions about entitlements, debt and taxes. Democrats might blame Clinton Derangement Syndrome, as we have seen Obama Derangement Syndrome (or flat-out racism) blamed for the lack of compromise in the last seven years, but the fact is that while the GOP was becoming a white nationalist party, its leadership has consistently opposed almost any legislation that would benefit working Americans who earn less than $200k a year.
12
We do not need to borrow to fund our government. Technically we don't even need taxes. Our federal government has a Constitutional monopoly over the money supply and we are a Monetary Sovereign. Infrastructure spending, to me, appears an obvious choice where increased government spending will produce the largest benefit in terms of employment and income. We need to restore the primacy of full employment policies. A national public bank would make this more affordable and not increase the national debt. The dollar for dollar debt for government deficit spending is a bookkeeping convention, that is all. The last time we generated inflation with debt free injections into the non financial private sector was when we rode to work on unicorns. In other words 'never.'
3
Sooner, rather than later, we need to begin the conversation about how we will deal with those who lose jobs and security from automation and the transfer of jobs to places where people are paid much less. If we leave it up to individuals to solve that problem, inequality will continue to increase and communities will continue to decline.
Americans, we are told, dislike redistribution so part of the conversation will have to be about that attitude. Maybe the answer is really high quality public services that are available to all. Maybe, it's accepting that higher taxes are needed. Maybe, it's rejecting the "free stuff" mantra that comes out of the mouths of so many. I suspect the solution, if we ever find it, will be complex and, sometimes, contradictory.
It will take a stubborn pragmatist to lead the way. I think Hillary Clinton is capable of that leadership.
Americans, we are told, dislike redistribution so part of the conversation will have to be about that attitude. Maybe the answer is really high quality public services that are available to all. Maybe, it's accepting that higher taxes are needed. Maybe, it's rejecting the "free stuff" mantra that comes out of the mouths of so many. I suspect the solution, if we ever find it, will be complex and, sometimes, contradictory.
It will take a stubborn pragmatist to lead the way. I think Hillary Clinton is capable of that leadership.
6
I agree with this column 100%. In fact, to illustrate the wisdom of Hillary's approach to economic policy, one could also say her policy is about not doing stupid stuff. And that is where she excels and all the Republicans flunk.
The Republicans make stupid assumptions; Clinton does not not.
The Republicans base their policies on ideology, and often that ideology is religious. Clinton does not.
Trump would increase the national debt by over $10 Trillion, in order to cut the taxes of the super-rich, in the false belief that economic benefits would trickle down to everyone else. Clinton would not do that.
Trump would insult our trading partners. Hillary would not.
Trump would get rid of the minimum wage. Hillary would raise it.
Trump's fundamental pledge is to do stupid stuff in every department. Clinton would not.
The Republicans make stupid assumptions; Clinton does not not.
The Republicans base their policies on ideology, and often that ideology is religious. Clinton does not.
Trump would increase the national debt by over $10 Trillion, in order to cut the taxes of the super-rich, in the false belief that economic benefits would trickle down to everyone else. Clinton would not do that.
Trump would insult our trading partners. Hillary would not.
Trump would get rid of the minimum wage. Hillary would raise it.
Trump's fundamental pledge is to do stupid stuff in every department. Clinton would not.
11
Krugman: "I’d also argue that we know how to fight financial crises and recessions, although political gridlock and deficit obsession has gotten in the way of using that knowledge."
Although it appears that we will continue to have a Democrat in the White House after November, my fear is that we will continue to have political gridlock after the election, because the Republicans will maintain control of both the House and the Senate, unfortunately.
If American voters want to elect Hilary Clinton and expect her to get anything done, they also need control of both houses of Congress to change. Otherwise, a President Clinton will, like President Obama, have to rely on executive power rather than legislative action to advance the public/common good.
Those believing a President Clinton will be able to make a difference without there being a difference in the control of the House and Senate after November are looking at the nation though the eyes of Alice in Wonderland. We no longer have patriots in Congress like we had when Lyndon Johnson was President, a Congress that could do big things, like passing Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation.
Although it appears that we will continue to have a Democrat in the White House after November, my fear is that we will continue to have political gridlock after the election, because the Republicans will maintain control of both the House and the Senate, unfortunately.
If American voters want to elect Hilary Clinton and expect her to get anything done, they also need control of both houses of Congress to change. Otherwise, a President Clinton will, like President Obama, have to rely on executive power rather than legislative action to advance the public/common good.
Those believing a President Clinton will be able to make a difference without there being a difference in the control of the House and Senate after November are looking at the nation though the eyes of Alice in Wonderland. We no longer have patriots in Congress like we had when Lyndon Johnson was President, a Congress that could do big things, like passing Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation.
18
LBJ had a large Democratic majority in both houses.
Clearly, much larger investments in infrastructure--in roads as well as information highways--would drastically improve the U.S. economy. So would smarter ways in resolving the trade-offs in foreign trade between lowering prices to consumers and preventing job losses. The latter requires imaginative initiatives primarily by the private sector, not the federal government. The same applies, even more so, to addressing the short- and long-term impacts of technological innovation. We should listen to MIT professor Brynjolfsson and his collaborator Andrew McAfee who have been arguing that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the U.S. economy. These MIT academics as well as other experts foresee even more dismal prospects for many types of jobs in the future as powerful new information and other technologies are more broadly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but also in professions such as teaching, engineering, law, financial services, and medicine.
It is still nearly impossible to attribute U.S. job and income losses to open trade encouraged by the forces of globalization versus to the enormous labor-displacement impacts of technology. What are the proper roles of government in improving our understanding and containing the adverse impacts of both? Hillary Clinton's agenda proposes some of the answers.
It is still nearly impossible to attribute U.S. job and income losses to open trade encouraged by the forces of globalization versus to the enormous labor-displacement impacts of technology. What are the proper roles of government in improving our understanding and containing the adverse impacts of both? Hillary Clinton's agenda proposes some of the answers.
2
Thank You, Dr. Krugman! Increasing the distribution of America's wealth to all of its citizens through infrastructure spending, including basic science and research and development in emerging new technologies and in medicine and health, is probably the best that the government can do to spur faster economic growth. It is the most productive way to get more money circulating in the economy and it raises everybody's standard of living with better freeways, mass transit, energy distribution, etc. I would also suggest that America reinvigorate its manned space program as part of that investment. It focuses us on what makes America best, exploration, risk taking and extending the reach of humankind.
248
Correct. Growth is a matter of raising productivity. But "real" productivity is a function of the individual producers -- their health, their knowledge (all of it), and how much time they waste (e.g. commuting on ridiculously overcrowded highways designed for a population half the size of what we now have). Economics is to ecology what astrology is to astronomy.
1
Stronger unions and higher wages would also be helpful. And, we must find a way to incentivize those "boarding" capital to either spend it in socially productive ways or lose it through taxation
Jack, I take it that you intend to "volunteer" to help pay for all of this. I'd like all of those things, but the error in your & Krugman's article is that someone (like you's) will have to pay for this. We need to be real & recognize that it is a world economy that we are in and the effects are a reduced level of comfort and charity.
If there's the confidence fairy maybe there's also the secular stagnation ogre. I must say that it worries me a lot when such a respected economist becomes so pessimistic about the nation's potential GDP growth. It reminds me of when a respected oncologist says that, given current technology, someone's cancer has only a limited chance of long-term cure.
Predictably, many people commenting here claim to have a miracle cure that somehow Dr. Krugman doesn't know about or understand. Perhaps, but Krugman usually seems on top of the current state of the art in economics.
So, let's all hope that Krugman is wrong and that somehow we can get back to some reasonable fraction of the growth rates that prevailed twenty years after the Great Depression. In the meantime we may have to exercise caution.
In particular, Krugman has often argued that we can take on a lot of additional debt since the real debt level is debt/GDP. If Krugman's pessimism is correct, this may have to be scaled back or be replaced by higher taxes or higher base inflation.
Predictably, many people commenting here claim to have a miracle cure that somehow Dr. Krugman doesn't know about or understand. Perhaps, but Krugman usually seems on top of the current state of the art in economics.
So, let's all hope that Krugman is wrong and that somehow we can get back to some reasonable fraction of the growth rates that prevailed twenty years after the Great Depression. In the meantime we may have to exercise caution.
In particular, Krugman has often argued that we can take on a lot of additional debt since the real debt level is debt/GDP. If Krugman's pessimism is correct, this may have to be scaled back or be replaced by higher taxes or higher base inflation.
It seems that GDP growth rate per capita is even more constant than total GDP growth rate since 1960 according to World Bank data. As Dr. Krugman said these rates appear to be independent of financial policy of administrations but more dependent on population. There is one developed country that has managed keep up a very high GDP growth rate in the past by taking in a massive number of high skill immigrants: Singapore. While GDP growth rate was great but it does generate social tension. Just recently, they slow immigration and we will see if their GDP growth rate will level out at about 2% where most developed countries are.
1
"We actually know" that "strengthening the social net", providing "security in retirement" and "essential health care" are disincentives to working.
These combined with the prolonged dismal economic growth solve the "mystery" of the "mysterious" decline in labor force participation.
These combined with the prolonged dismal economic growth solve the "mystery" of the "mysterious" decline in labor force participation.
1
Wrong. Half of the decline in labor force participation is due to the size of the baby boom retirements. The other half is due to wage stagnation and automation. The tRumpian bigotry implied in your comment is fear based ignorance. 99% of Americans would prefer a good job to welfare.
This isn't the case in Germany and Denmark. I agree certain benefits, like disability, may be abused and disincentivize workers--especially when available jobs don't pay much more. But weakening the basic social safety net will only stimulate plantation-scale jobs among desperate people. That's not going to do much for the GDP.
1
Productivity on the scale of GDP suffers, my theory is, due to death by a thousand paper cuts, but instead millions and millions of them. What are those paper cuts? Total GDP is big data consolidation of all national inputs and outputs and outputs are down. But lots of new jobs have people working their brains out, Why? Most people are working their brains out on jobs that put the cost on them. These new jobs do not pay the cost of living so wages are going to survival mode spending rather than consumer spending. That means lots of money goes to finance industry fabrications like late fees, increased cost of using money justified by poor credit scores, yet another fabrication of the finance industry by holding their thumb down on the working person's scale who is not irresponsible with money, they don't have any money to be responsible for. Multiply this by millions of people and you will find the drag on GDP. When the Median income is less than half of the people earning income, it stands to reason. When 1 in 3 people are struggling to hang on or are not making it while working, that's miss-directed productivity spent on survival modes living that tears at GDP. They aren't buying durable goods let alone cars or houses. They aren't buying services. They're only paying enough of the electricity bill when they can to keep the lights on.
Wanna raise GDP? Get people financially sound so their disgrace of incomes aren't a drag on the economy as a whole.
Wanna raise GDP? Get people financially sound so their disgrace of incomes aren't a drag on the economy as a whole.
16
Agree. Can microfinancing help?
Also, isn't Paul's preferred candidate in bed with the finance industry? Many of these " fees" are not going anywhere but up.
1
There seem to be two fundamental rules in political campaigns: first, never say anything that can lead you to be attacked by your opponents (such as saying you support tax increases) and second, prepare to be attacked no matter what you say, or even if you don't say anything. In a world where catering to constituencies, meted out according to the input from focus groups forms the basis for every campaign, and yet in spite of carefully chosen campaign strategies based on such efforts nevertheless results in gratuitous attacks and ad hominem mendacious smear campaigns, I guess one might as well be honest.
4
"Wouldn’t it be great if that kind of policy honesty became the norm?"
------------
Honesty in explaining how climate change is to be conquered together with achievement of higher growth would be great to see in yet another one-track lecture in economics.
------------
Honesty in explaining how climate change is to be conquered together with achievement of higher growth would be great to see in yet another one-track lecture in economics.
3
As bad as the right-wing's refusal to admit that lower taxes must be paid for with draconian cuts in gov't programs, is the left's insistence that higher taxes on the 1% can pay for everything. By definition, the 1% is a very small group. Yes, they are super-wealthy, but they are still a small group. AND, they have means to shelter some of that wealthy from the taxman. While I agree with some of Bernie Sander's policy positions, it was also clear to me that in addition to being not-doable in the current climate, that they would require tax increases for all - not just those nameless, faceless, members of the 1% who are portrayed as having more money than God. Mind, I'm not averse to paying a bit more so that all can have enough, but I do object to the reluctance of the left to admit that that would be necessary.
21
Anne - Marie, I agree. My comments have always pointed out the necessity of more borrowing and creation of money. This has worked in the past (1946 - 1973). Why not give it a try now?
2
I agree with most of what you said but you had me when you said 'require tax increases for all'. There I blanched.
It would be nice to say that all should pay taxes. Unfortunately, not all can afford to do so and hence we have the Earned Income Credit. But, isn't the money somewhere?
Since the wealthy fail in complying to the 'trickle-down-economics' bargain they espouse, maybe a little force needs to be administered.
Call it the Forced Voluntary Payment for Bridges and Infrastructure Act.
The rich would be forced to 'trickle down' as part of their contract with society.
From there, people get jobs to build things. They then get nice remunerative salaries from which they can pay their proper share of taxes and send their kids to fine schools. That is a form of trickle-down-something I can understand.
The very rich have abused the American middle class with shipping jobs overseas and not paying their fair share of the burden. Yes, fair is a nebulous concept but, when something smells rotten, then no amount of word-smithing like 'trickle-down-economics' will take away the stench.
How much and how deep the taxes should go is something we can argue about.
But to begin ciphering before we even begin forming a contract between the classes is to bargain from weakness. Our strength as a middle class is our buying power.
Oh, and if the rich want, they can have their names emblazoned on a bridge or two.
It would be nice to say that all should pay taxes. Unfortunately, not all can afford to do so and hence we have the Earned Income Credit. But, isn't the money somewhere?
Since the wealthy fail in complying to the 'trickle-down-economics' bargain they espouse, maybe a little force needs to be administered.
Call it the Forced Voluntary Payment for Bridges and Infrastructure Act.
The rich would be forced to 'trickle down' as part of their contract with society.
From there, people get jobs to build things. They then get nice remunerative salaries from which they can pay their proper share of taxes and send their kids to fine schools. That is a form of trickle-down-something I can understand.
The very rich have abused the American middle class with shipping jobs overseas and not paying their fair share of the burden. Yes, fair is a nebulous concept but, when something smells rotten, then no amount of word-smithing like 'trickle-down-economics' will take away the stench.
How much and how deep the taxes should go is something we can argue about.
But to begin ciphering before we even begin forming a contract between the classes is to bargain from weakness. Our strength as a middle class is our buying power.
Oh, and if the rich want, they can have their names emblazoned on a bridge or two.
At its core the problem with the economy resembles the problem with right wing politics as it is practiced in this country. Just as they not so secretly accept the support of working class bigots, they accept the support of the selfish rich. If they wanted to turn their attention to what is best for America, instead of their tea party idiocy, we might be able to get a compromise that had a chance to work. Ryan and his crowd keep telling us that what didn't work in the past is our way to economic growth, Trump hasn't a clue. I am of the opinion that he thinks wars help the economy. Why else would he be interested in nukes? Truth is what you say. My hope is that folks will read it and come to their senses! Thank You!
6
Paul: Unfortunately, wars have helped economies in the past. WWII finally pulled the USA out of the remains of the Great Depression; it also gave Americans a manufacturing base that made Labor a partner in society rather than an unwilling servant. The glow lasted for the best part of 30 years, up to the mid-70s. I fear that the next POTUS may be pushed into war by the oligarchs and their generals.
1
"We're going to cut your taxes" is the central thesis of the Republican message. It's what their "customers" want to hear, and it's what they have, and always will, say to them. The consequences don't matter. The history of failure doesn't matter. The history of big spending without the necessary revenues doesn't matter. The history of failed promises about growth doesn't matter. The history of broken promises about job creation doesn't matter. The record of how tax cuts generally reward only a precious few doesn't matter. The fact that even Ronald Reagan admitted tax increases may sometimes be necessary to balance the books doesn't matter. The fact that you can't go to war and simultaneously cut taxes doesn't matter. The fact that you can't have your roads, bridges, airports and retirement programs without paying for them doesn't matter. Yes, we're going to cut your taxes. It's like a Geico commercial -- "It's what we do."
459
Seems a severe, if not honest, critique of Obama's policies
"How sharper than a serpent's tooth a factual observer!)
The ' subsequent slide ' that began under Dubya and continued under Obama would have been different if Obama had not been afflicted with the austerians Dr. K. has so often bemoaned.
And it is important to remember that it took 4 terms for FDR to put the New Deal in place that enabled the so-often vaunted '50s; we should expect quite a few years of Dems in the White House and Congress to repair the damage from voodoo supply-siders.
Lastly, we have to believe in the statistics, the data, which show that since WWII, an unbroken track record of 70 years show Dems in the White House are better for the economy than GOP'ers, without fail, and it's not even a close contest:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_the_economy_do...
Things will be even better if Hillary isn't ham-strung by a GOP'er House, which would spend its every waking moment doing investigations of her.
And it is important to remember that it took 4 terms for FDR to put the New Deal in place that enabled the so-often vaunted '50s; we should expect quite a few years of Dems in the White House and Congress to repair the damage from voodoo supply-siders.
Lastly, we have to believe in the statistics, the data, which show that since WWII, an unbroken track record of 70 years show Dems in the White House are better for the economy than GOP'ers, without fail, and it's not even a close contest:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_the_economy_do...
Things will be even better if Hillary isn't ham-strung by a GOP'er House, which would spend its every waking moment doing investigations of her.
10
The New Deal was largely a failure. It was the build up of the military and huge government spending on WWII that pulled America out of the economic doldrums.
1
bruce - Hopefully Gerry Connolly is your representative, and he can explain that what was put in place in the 5 Dem administrations from 1932-52 are what created/supported the great middle class in the great middle parts of the last century, which have been whittled away at by GOP'ers at ever opportunity because ideology - actual results need not intrude.
1
Bruce is just wrong on the facts. 1933 -1937 saw the greatest reduction in unemployment in the history of the US. In 1937, FDR was persuaded to give up on the New Deal and cut spending. That is what stopped progress.
2
It's interesting that Krugman invokes the Serenity Prayer. In so much of Republican policy or practice, serenity has given way to the all-anger-all-the-time culture of Fox News and talk radio culminating in the 2016 Republican National Convention. Courage to change has never been an issue with them because change is anathema. And they seek, not Divine wisdom but mere Divine approval for morally outrageous and shortsighted policies.
And the answer to that prayer was not the Second Advent of Jesus; it was the advent of Donald Trump.
And the answer to that prayer was not the Second Advent of Jesus; it was the advent of Donald Trump.
5
American voters don't long for honesty; otherwise we would have elected different people. We wouldn't have elected Reagan and Bush 2 TWICE. We wouldn't have believed Reagan's assertion that cutting taxes would INCREASE revenues, or Bush's similar snake oil.
No, we want fantasies and myths, we want the Tooth Fairy to deliver the goods.
No, we want fantasies and myths, we want the Tooth Fairy to deliver the goods.
4
We can each contribute to the prosperity and security of the United States by voting against Republican candidates up and down the ballot.
While it is essential to our democracy that there be at least two political parties offering opposing visions and policies, the Republican Party is no longer such an organization. The dead elephant blocks the road ahead. It is time to remove the carcass and move forward while reforming into new and healthier political organizations.
While it is essential to our democracy that there be at least two political parties offering opposing visions and policies, the Republican Party is no longer such an organization. The dead elephant blocks the road ahead. It is time to remove the carcass and move forward while reforming into new and healthier political organizations.
15
US corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves much of it off-shore.
See for example: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/368ef430-1e24-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15.html
These reserves have been growing rapidly over the last few years.
It seems that companies don't mind paying higher dividends but are not inclined to reinvest in themselves. The rationale (or excuse) for this is the complex US tax code. Wouldn't all those trillions be better spent rather than hoarded? If so, is unlocking them a political or an economic problem?
Questions I have, solutions are above my pay grade.
See for example: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/368ef430-1e24-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15.html
These reserves have been growing rapidly over the last few years.
It seems that companies don't mind paying higher dividends but are not inclined to reinvest in themselves. The rationale (or excuse) for this is the complex US tax code. Wouldn't all those trillions be better spent rather than hoarded? If so, is unlocking them a political or an economic problem?
Questions I have, solutions are above my pay grade.
11
We havedone this
1
I totally agree about infrastructure spending. It's a three-step process:
Fix our crumbling roads, bridges, and tunnels. Replace our outdated public utility systems with safer and cleaner ones. Grow our economy by ensuring that basic infrastructure is the best in the world.
Create hundreds of thousands of new jobs with middle-class incomes and wages. Jobs for men AND women. Jobs for people of all colors and religions. These jobs will move whole families out of poverty and will create a ripple effect of supporting jobs.
Support these projects and jobs with new and more efficient supply management systems, using efficiencies we've learned over the past decades, while stimulating new manufacturing efficiencies that can be fed back into other sectors.
I see this as win, win, win.
Fix our crumbling roads, bridges, and tunnels. Replace our outdated public utility systems with safer and cleaner ones. Grow our economy by ensuring that basic infrastructure is the best in the world.
Create hundreds of thousands of new jobs with middle-class incomes and wages. Jobs for men AND women. Jobs for people of all colors and religions. These jobs will move whole families out of poverty and will create a ripple effect of supporting jobs.
Support these projects and jobs with new and more efficient supply management systems, using efficiencies we've learned over the past decades, while stimulating new manufacturing efficiencies that can be fed back into other sectors.
I see this as win, win, win.
3
We need the courage of transformational economic thinking and acting. Part of that courage would be making the public authorities the main creator of money rather than leaving it to privately owned banking systems that presently create some 95% of the money supply.
Since Irvin Fisher in the 1930s and the few remaining public banks in North Dakota, Alberta, New Zealand the issue of money creation and public banking is again an issue that is being discussed by several governments. Imagine infrastructure and climate change spending that is only limited by the imagination of the planners rather than shortage of funding! Sanders’ vision could be financed and Clinton’s economic program could become more alluring.
However, widespread public banking is not possible without global economic cooperation and the transformation of the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system. One way of bringing this transformation about is suggested in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" where its conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions are presented. It is updated at www.timun.net.
Since Irvin Fisher in the 1930s and the few remaining public banks in North Dakota, Alberta, New Zealand the issue of money creation and public banking is again an issue that is being discussed by several governments. Imagine infrastructure and climate change spending that is only limited by the imagination of the planners rather than shortage of funding! Sanders’ vision could be financed and Clinton’s economic program could become more alluring.
However, widespread public banking is not possible without global economic cooperation and the transformation of the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system. One way of bringing this transformation about is suggested in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" where its conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions are presented. It is updated at www.timun.net.
1
Frans: we need the wisdom of transformational societal thinking. Separating people from the economy except as consumers is a dead-end strategy, and now we're against the wall.
1
Frans, I love your first paragraph. 2008 (and all 6 previous depressions) shows what happens when we rely on private banks to make up for a lack of money coming from federal government.
3
Growth is the easy solution to income disparity. Everyone gets a little better off because of wage growth. Tax revenue is a natural outcome of income growth and not a change in tax policy. No one needs to complain of redistribution.
But how does a nation grow if demand is saturated for basic existing products? Or if incomes are so low that health, education, housing and food take up all of it? How does a nation grow if exports are limited because other nations, playing catch up, can make them so cheaply that our labor force cannot compete?
We have run on a model of industrial manufacturing dominance since the first factories were built along every waterway. We don't have that model anymore. Cheap labor and emerging markets for goods are much harder to access and develop, since access and development is happening in those countries.
We can look at tax policy, and try to make sitting on wealth, parking it abroad, and using it to gamble in hedge funds, and securitizing everything from car loans to educational loans more expensive. But technology and global labor rates will not go away. Trump can bombast, and Clinton can policy wonk, but the baseline is set.
But how does a nation grow if demand is saturated for basic existing products? Or if incomes are so low that health, education, housing and food take up all of it? How does a nation grow if exports are limited because other nations, playing catch up, can make them so cheaply that our labor force cannot compete?
We have run on a model of industrial manufacturing dominance since the first factories were built along every waterway. We don't have that model anymore. Cheap labor and emerging markets for goods are much harder to access and develop, since access and development is happening in those countries.
We can look at tax policy, and try to make sitting on wealth, parking it abroad, and using it to gamble in hedge funds, and securitizing everything from car loans to educational loans more expensive. But technology and global labor rates will not go away. Trump can bombast, and Clinton can policy wonk, but the baseline is set.
6
I have come to use a phrase. Is it need or greed? Growth should have to answer that question. Growth for growth`s sake is greed. When I see companies buying other companies and they are asked why, many say they can`t compete without growth. This is cannibalistic capitalism and left unchecked won`t stop until there is nothing left to canni.balize and no one left to compete with
While significantly to the left of Ms. Clinton, I plead innocent to suffering from "Clinton Derangement Syndrome"; I don't disparage her excessively --other than for her wooden, tone-deaf, high-school-drama-club oratorical style, a la Al Gore-- and will certainly vote for her.
Nor do I claim the knowledge to refute Dr. Krugman regarding our inability to know how reliably to "accelerate long-run growth."
And as someone who is even more infuriated by Republican mendacity than by their actual policies, I'd be hard pressed to argue against "policy honesty" or indeed honesty of any kind.
But is there not also a place for articulating broader, larger goals? For changing the conversation? For inspiration? If there is such a need, when better to assert it than during a campaign; there is plenty of time to drill down to the hard, pragmatic details once in office, and there is nothing dishonest about the inevitability of ultimate policy and legislation falling short of espoused dreams and ideals as long as said policies were inspired and informed by such ideals and a good-faith effort made to get as close to them as the reality of the political process will allow.
Churchill, JFK and FDR knew when and how to inspire and when to engage in wonkery; would that Ms. Clinton had the same instincts and ability.
Nor do I claim the knowledge to refute Dr. Krugman regarding our inability to know how reliably to "accelerate long-run growth."
And as someone who is even more infuriated by Republican mendacity than by their actual policies, I'd be hard pressed to argue against "policy honesty" or indeed honesty of any kind.
But is there not also a place for articulating broader, larger goals? For changing the conversation? For inspiration? If there is such a need, when better to assert it than during a campaign; there is plenty of time to drill down to the hard, pragmatic details once in office, and there is nothing dishonest about the inevitability of ultimate policy and legislation falling short of espoused dreams and ideals as long as said policies were inspired and informed by such ideals and a good-faith effort made to get as close to them as the reality of the political process will allow.
Churchill, JFK and FDR knew when and how to inspire and when to engage in wonkery; would that Ms. Clinton had the same instincts and ability.
13
One thing we should get used to is that we are in uncharted economic territory. The world's economy has never been in this state before - nor America's. The hand-wringing of economists over what can be based on the past represents wishful thinking.
Mr. Krugman gets it right that we should focus on fundamental things that can be done and we should be able to accept an economy that is not "great" unless it's in a perpetual state of "boom."
Continuous 1.5% growth on average is not bad if it's not punctuated by negative growth from "bust" recessions every few years.
Mr. Krugman gets it right that we should focus on fundamental things that can be done and we should be able to accept an economy that is not "great" unless it's in a perpetual state of "boom."
Continuous 1.5% growth on average is not bad if it's not punctuated by negative growth from "bust" recessions every few years.
6
Laughable: "...we are in uncharted economic territory..." Absolutely. We were never 7.5 billion going on 9 billion before. We had wars that marched great armies against each other. Now, a small cadre with a laptop can cause havoc, and a madman with a gun can cause murder and mayhem.
It would be great if political honesty became the norm and politicians stopped lying to the public by saying things that they ultimately cannot backup with action. Furthermore, I do not know why everyone expects continuous economic growth. I do not see how that is possible.
5
Political honesty is something that's never existed and never will. May as well get used to it.
It took me 45 years to build up my 401(k) to my retirement goal and 6 months to reduce it by almost 50% in 2008. Count me in for Hillary's realistic economic proposals.
130
Steven: You should be back ahead now. Unless you bailed out.
Dudley,
Getting back is not the same as earning on a higher base during all these years. But your happy view is nice.
Getting back is not the same as earning on a higher base during all these years. But your happy view is nice.
4
Eight years of Obama has helped return some of mine. I hope you had the time for that!
Republicans please note, take a look at the economy. It does much better under Democrats! Stop deceiving yourselves.
Republicans please note, take a look at the economy. It does much better under Democrats! Stop deceiving yourselves.
1
Earlier at dawn, I listened to 'An American Man' playing on the radio. A hard-working roof constructor left his boom-box in Trump Land to keep me company and brought toys for the stray cat who is enjoying the best of both worlds.
Up pops a shining breakfast Ad of a smiling 600-pounder. He is an American and one of our large Banks has just given him a fine loan. A U.S. giant corporation would have a better chance of a deal if it was advertising cigarettes.
It is the Economy, Mr. Krugman, and Hillary Clinton is prepared to work the trenches of Wall Street for all of us, regardless of our Party Affiliation, our complexion and religion. She is not fooling around. She is not goofing off at our expense.
But what if she is making a profit at my expense, one might ask? Go for it! The rest is a lot of mullarkey and we need a starting point. Trump cares about the People most likely, but why am I now hearing a 'rude' song, a golden oldie, by Newman to the tune of 'He doesn't know his A-- from a hole in the Ground', first heard long ago and it rings true to this American.
Up pops a shining breakfast Ad of a smiling 600-pounder. He is an American and one of our large Banks has just given him a fine loan. A U.S. giant corporation would have a better chance of a deal if it was advertising cigarettes.
It is the Economy, Mr. Krugman, and Hillary Clinton is prepared to work the trenches of Wall Street for all of us, regardless of our Party Affiliation, our complexion and religion. She is not fooling around. She is not goofing off at our expense.
But what if she is making a profit at my expense, one might ask? Go for it! The rest is a lot of mullarkey and we need a starting point. Trump cares about the People most likely, but why am I now hearing a 'rude' song, a golden oldie, by Newman to the tune of 'He doesn't know his A-- from a hole in the Ground', first heard long ago and it rings true to this American.
2
What do we know about accelerating long-run growth?
It's not conceptually difficult to create a Chinese style economic growth, when controlling the economy: if you invest 50% of the economic resources, you'll obtain at least 7-8% year growth. To obtain the same result in the West, we need to save more, invest more, and consume less now, in order to consume more one day. the issue, is to find a leader who can convince voters about the wisdom of this policy: almost everyone is addicted to "consume now, pay later".
It's not conceptually difficult to create a Chinese style economic growth, when controlling the economy: if you invest 50% of the economic resources, you'll obtain at least 7-8% year growth. To obtain the same result in the West, we need to save more, invest more, and consume less now, in order to consume more one day. the issue, is to find a leader who can convince voters about the wisdom of this policy: almost everyone is addicted to "consume now, pay later".
3
It is silly to talk about raising taxes when those with large, often very large, incomes have so many loop holes to take advantage of that few if any pay the full top tax rate. It would just usher in another round of loop holes for those that do not need it. The corporate tax rate is about 39%, but the effective tax rate, that is the tax rate when all receipts are averaged out is .... drum role please ... 12.1%.
So it turns out that raising taxes is just a song and dance and nothing more.
Hillary's income from speeches may have set a new Guinness record for the most money made in the least amount of time, excluding "income" made from some investment going through the roof. How about that.
So it turns out that raising taxes is just a song and dance and nothing more.
Hillary's income from speeches may have set a new Guinness record for the most money made in the least amount of time, excluding "income" made from some investment going through the roof. How about that.
10
Your "it doesn't make any difference" rant, which is really an attack on Hillary, disqualifies you as a voter. It appears that it's good when your GOP pals make money, but bad for all others. This is hypocrisy.
5
David:
Who are you to disqualify anyone as a voter?
Who are you to disqualify anyone as a voter?
4
David,
How the heck did you get GOP out carl99e's rant?
It read much more like a Dem. tired of hypocrisy. A 3rd party voter.
Much less the very un-American idea that somehow he is disqualified as a voter.
Sad when a Democratic Party member is standing up for the plutocratic 1% candidate. Backing the oligarchy. Talk of hypocrisy.
How the heck did you get GOP out carl99e's rant?
It read much more like a Dem. tired of hypocrisy. A 3rd party voter.
Much less the very un-American idea that somehow he is disqualified as a voter.
Sad when a Democratic Party member is standing up for the plutocratic 1% candidate. Backing the oligarchy. Talk of hypocrisy.
3
I'm fine with a centrist Democrat as President. I tried that "you say you want a revolution" thing back nearly fifty years ago. It was not a good idea then, and it is not now, but it always attracts people on the fringes. An orientation toward measured progress across a multitude of needs is fine, and doing so without creating a bubble that will burst and cause tumult is also a responsibility of leadership. I do agree that given the extremely low rate of borrowing, the government could fund all the huge infrastructure improvements that we need by floating bonds and the resulting increase in employment, revenue, and consumer spending that would result would more than pay the interest expense. Republicans oppose it because they do not want to strengthen the middle class; they only want to increase the strength of the top 0.1% class.
20
Donald Trump has become an embarassment, all bluster and threat. His contorted vision of justice doesn't exceed his selfishness—recessions, bias, and ugly discourtesies are all okay if he isn't getting his way. Sitting in a G8 summit, offering consoling words after a national tragedy?
And how many times must the world witness the failure of tax cuts to stimulate anything but the growth of wealth for rich elites? They didn't work in England, Kansas, or San Bernardino; yet the GOP refuses to admit austerity for growth is a contradiction that is self-defeating!
How will growth and high wages come? From traditional policy of stimulus through infrastructure—or from new models that can launch America into a period of increase in net worth and income with new opportunities for work and investment. One national model with repeated spectular local success has been the rehabiliation of older motel properties across the US by Indian immigrants from Gurjarat (some by way of East Africa!); these generated outsized growth and returns and amazing cash flow. Similarly, the loose network of “China” buses revolutionized low cost travel from city to city along the East Coast; with working wi-fi, I can travel to New York City for the same price as cab fare to Charleston!
Hillary needs to focus on commerce in rural and urban areas for sustaining generational growth more than broadly targeting demographic groups for services. A plan for commerce supports engaged self-determination.
And how many times must the world witness the failure of tax cuts to stimulate anything but the growth of wealth for rich elites? They didn't work in England, Kansas, or San Bernardino; yet the GOP refuses to admit austerity for growth is a contradiction that is self-defeating!
How will growth and high wages come? From traditional policy of stimulus through infrastructure—or from new models that can launch America into a period of increase in net worth and income with new opportunities for work and investment. One national model with repeated spectular local success has been the rehabiliation of older motel properties across the US by Indian immigrants from Gurjarat (some by way of East Africa!); these generated outsized growth and returns and amazing cash flow. Similarly, the loose network of “China” buses revolutionized low cost travel from city to city along the East Coast; with working wi-fi, I can travel to New York City for the same price as cab fare to Charleston!
Hillary needs to focus on commerce in rural and urban areas for sustaining generational growth more than broadly targeting demographic groups for services. A plan for commerce supports engaged self-determination.
14
"But there has also been a somewhat mysterious decline in labor force participation among prime-age adults and a sharp drop in productivity growth."
Really? Recently reading Heilbroner's Logic and Nature of Capitalism.
I wonder what this Nobel Prize winner in Economics's definition of Capitalism is that he can be so clueless?
Really? Recently reading Heilbroner's Logic and Nature of Capitalism.
I wonder what this Nobel Prize winner in Economics's definition of Capitalism is that he can be so clueless?
3
Taking a quote out of context from a book you claim you read proves little.
"Clueless" is the last word that describes Dr. Krugman's work.
"Clueless" is the last word that describes Dr. Krugman's work.
When the Scorpion asked you to carry her across, did you really expect not to be stung?
Now you wish she would be braver? When she told you she was a moderate? That she would only do incremental, pragmatic things. Maybe! Cause else was too hard and not possible.
Now you want her to be more like that other guy that we don’t mention anymore? Really?! Ha, ha, too funny. Remorse already? The “Pivot” too real?! She told you.
Now we can all hope to make it to the other side.
Thus is the game of Monopoly played. Around and around we go. Be lucky and smart, buy and build, then bankrupt your fellow player. We have reached End Game. The Few have all the wealth and property. The peons roll desperately hoping to land on Free Parking or at least just a utility. One bad roll, Park Place, and that’s it. We lose our Republic. Game Over.
Someone wanted to change the rules of the game as you are suggesting. Maybe even flip the table. But that was considered nonsense. Who cares what some economist wrote in his own book. The Scorpion promised.
Next time I want to be the race car.
Now you wish she would be braver? When she told you she was a moderate? That she would only do incremental, pragmatic things. Maybe! Cause else was too hard and not possible.
Now you want her to be more like that other guy that we don’t mention anymore? Really?! Ha, ha, too funny. Remorse already? The “Pivot” too real?! She told you.
Now we can all hope to make it to the other side.
Thus is the game of Monopoly played. Around and around we go. Be lucky and smart, buy and build, then bankrupt your fellow player. We have reached End Game. The Few have all the wealth and property. The peons roll desperately hoping to land on Free Parking or at least just a utility. One bad roll, Park Place, and that’s it. We lose our Republic. Game Over.
Someone wanted to change the rules of the game as you are suggesting. Maybe even flip the table. But that was considered nonsense. Who cares what some economist wrote in his own book. The Scorpion promised.
Next time I want to be the race car.
6
Professor Krugman, the focus of your column today is completely wrong. We have a real problem with growth. Instead of throwing up your hands and asking for the serenity to deal with it, you should have examined what we know about the causes of slow growth and what we don't know. What do we know how to do, and what we need to do but don't know how. Besides infrastructure spending, a small but important piece is eliminating student debt, thereby promoting the formation of new households. This goes hand in hand with broadening access to post-high school education for technical training.
I'd like to see you address issues like how do we boost corporate investment? Besides highways and bridges what other national investment is worthwhile? I'd like to see high speed internet connectivity, universal voice recognition software across all platforms coupled with intelligent agents. As a country we need to sit down and have a conversation about growth, something lacking in the current campaign, which seems all about Mr. Trump.
I'd like to see you address issues like how do we boost corporate investment? Besides highways and bridges what other national investment is worthwhile? I'd like to see high speed internet connectivity, universal voice recognition software across all platforms coupled with intelligent agents. As a country we need to sit down and have a conversation about growth, something lacking in the current campaign, which seems all about Mr. Trump.
110
As long as we spend most of our money on cars we don't need, houses way too big for our needs, and military adventuring that is designed to transfer wealth to the 0.1 percent, we don't have the money to do squat.
1
My millennial kids are highly educated, hard working and dedicated to public service. They are resigned to the fact that for the next decades, they will be repaying their college loans, mostly interest, even before they pay off the entire loan. They live in big cities where its expensive but they have no choice because their jobs are in the city and they are not keen on moving to the suburbs, yet. We have tried to help them with their college tuitions but they had to rely on subsidized and unsubsidized loans to meet the high costs of higher education. They worked through grad school to make ends meet. These are kids who have done everything right, yet they are being penalized by an expensive higher ed system. In the coming decades we are going to see a drop in living standards for this young generation.
3
how do we boost corporate investment?
Why not try to get money to the people who need it and will become new customers for corporations? We could do that by providing a decent federal job for all those who need one.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
Why not try to get money to the people who need it and will become new customers for corporations? We could do that by providing a decent federal job for all those who need one.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
3
Hm-m-m-m.... seems that there was a candidate for President not so long ago who wanted to provide essential health care to everyone, noting that most advanced countries do it; who wanted to ensure basic security in retirement for the next generation; who wanted to raise the incomes of low-paid workers; oh... and wanted to use deficit spending to address our dilapidated infrastructure. Too bad you and your colleagues couldn't take that that fellow from VT seriously....
14
Work with the rich; that's hilarious!
5
Good column today. I buy into PK, just to get that out of the way. I expand my inner PK by reading VOX and BloombergView.
Forget about center left or moderate conservative ...those labels do not have any clarity for me. I just try to be a fact centered skeptic. I am skeptical of grand schemes. Something I would like to do but do not think we know how to do is: what to do about work dislocation like those WestVirginia-easternKentucky-easternOhio out of work coal miners. A lot of those folks know how to do stuff like run machinery, plan tasks, meet deadlines etc but now they are out of a job. We do not know how to manage that. My own inclination is to get them money, I do not care if its minimum wage, wage subsidies, helicopter money, the universal basic income or whatever. I wish we could take it slow, experiment fairly small (start with one state), find what works, measure things, then scale up. Dream on. Still someday we will have to deal with the out of work (the coal miners are just an example but works for them might work for all our children). So try things, do not commit to any grand scheme yet. Pay as you go. Will never happen. We think big,, fail big, then correct over generations. I reading recommend Noah Smith at BloombergView and column: Can government raise wages? It's worth a try: For government substitute taxpayer as in "I am from the taxpayers, and I here to help". Hillary is at heart an incrementalist. Hope springs.
Forget about center left or moderate conservative ...those labels do not have any clarity for me. I just try to be a fact centered skeptic. I am skeptical of grand schemes. Something I would like to do but do not think we know how to do is: what to do about work dislocation like those WestVirginia-easternKentucky-easternOhio out of work coal miners. A lot of those folks know how to do stuff like run machinery, plan tasks, meet deadlines etc but now they are out of a job. We do not know how to manage that. My own inclination is to get them money, I do not care if its minimum wage, wage subsidies, helicopter money, the universal basic income or whatever. I wish we could take it slow, experiment fairly small (start with one state), find what works, measure things, then scale up. Dream on. Still someday we will have to deal with the out of work (the coal miners are just an example but works for them might work for all our children). So try things, do not commit to any grand scheme yet. Pay as you go. Will never happen. We think big,, fail big, then correct over generations. I reading recommend Noah Smith at BloombergView and column: Can government raise wages? It's worth a try: For government substitute taxpayer as in "I am from the taxpayers, and I here to help". Hillary is at heart an incrementalist. Hope springs.
7
Mr. Krugman, if you are going to accentuate the possible, I really think you have to remove your constant suggestion of bold new government borrowing from your quiver. No matter how logically you frame it, the deficit hawks will defeat you- their predecessors even fought Roosevelt to a stand-still until they had a nice war to borrow for. Only then was enough debt taken to actually fire up the economic engine of this country and fully pull it out of the depression.
Hillary has probably actually hit the sweet-spot of the possible by financing her plans with a tax increase on the wealthy and other mechanisms not requiring major new borrowing. To accomplish even this she will need a Dem majority into the Senate- and it will still require heavy lifting.
Hillary has probably actually hit the sweet-spot of the possible by financing her plans with a tax increase on the wealthy and other mechanisms not requiring major new borrowing. To accomplish even this she will need a Dem majority into the Senate- and it will still require heavy lifting.
202
alan, we increased the debt by 75% from 1946 - 1973 and enjoyed Great Prosperity. Why no try it again?
3
Obama slows the growth in the deficit compared to Bush the deficit hawks are squawking.
Interesting, but I suspect that just the opposite is true. Republicans and their banker friends argue vociferously deficit hawks, but they seem to love deficits. Deficits increase dramatically whenever Republicans are in office. They provide very secure investment tools for their rich clients.
On the other hand, progressive taxes cost the wealthy (though not nearly as much as we're led to believe) and promote economic equality. And Republicans have been steadfast in reducing taxes on the wealthy.
I think that rather than looking at what they say, we should watch what they do.
On the other hand, progressive taxes cost the wealthy (though not nearly as much as we're led to believe) and promote economic equality. And Republicans have been steadfast in reducing taxes on the wealthy.
I think that rather than looking at what they say, we should watch what they do.
2
Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer starts or ends most AA meetings and, as with most addictions, one must first admit that there is a problem before you can attempt to fix things. This is an impossible state of grace to achieve when you have your own network telling you that your faults are your strengths and your problems are created by outside forces. The Trump supporters I know are angry for no apparent reason. They are well off, have jobs, friends, families and secure futures. Yet, they continue to rant and rave about how Obama is killing them by tripling their stock portfolios, keeping gas prices and unemployment low and bring down the national debt. They don't realize that they are being played for marks by their political party and the propaganda machines they listen to 24/7. So I say to them "Grant me the serenity to accept that I've been lied to, The courage to change my voter registration and the wisdom to turn off FOX noise."
25
They watch the Propaganda Channel too much, and you can't tell them different.
1
Ozark orc: Rick Gage:
It's a difficult task to persuade. That goes for all humans, Trump supporters and you guys too.
It's a difficult task to persuade. That goes for all humans, Trump supporters and you guys too.
2
Step on the gas and don't ride the brakes. Yup. Got it.
Paying as you go may be quaint to the Republicans but the rest of us understand it all too well.
Hillary will move us in those directions. The details remain to be seen. But just moving that direction will be enough to start with. The failure of supply side/austerity is plain to most everyone. Time to get back to tried and true methods.
Paying as you go may be quaint to the Republicans but the rest of us understand it all too well.
Hillary will move us in those directions. The details remain to be seen. But just moving that direction will be enough to start with. The failure of supply side/austerity is plain to most everyone. Time to get back to tried and true methods.
13
Yep, pay as you go has worked for me and my family. Seemed it worked for the U.S. in the 1990's. We had a surplus budget while reducing the national debt. I voted for Ross Perot because he said "interest buys nothing" and we were paying billions in interest on our debt. But, I was never disappointed that Bill Clinton was elected because he heard what Ross was preaching. United we Stand, now lets unite behind Hillary and go with her economic plan.
1
Well, not so much:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
As for the 1990's, starting in 1996, money began to flow out of the private sector due to too small federal deficits and too large trade deficits. The Clinton surpluses exacerbated this situation. Private debt exploded and the banking system was put under stress.
This continued under Bush since his deficits were not large enough to compensate for the huge trade deficit. Except for a brief period in 2003. money continued to flow OUT of the private sector, The stress on the banks intensified, culminating in 2008.
The finances of a huge long lived country which can print the currency its debts are in and which has the responsibility to supply money so we can conduct commerce are far, far different than your person finances, JRM.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
As for the 1990's, starting in 1996, money began to flow out of the private sector due to too small federal deficits and too large trade deficits. The Clinton surpluses exacerbated this situation. Private debt exploded and the banking system was put under stress.
This continued under Bush since his deficits were not large enough to compensate for the huge trade deficit. Except for a brief period in 2003. money continued to flow OUT of the private sector, The stress on the banks intensified, culminating in 2008.
The finances of a huge long lived country which can print the currency its debts are in and which has the responsibility to supply money so we can conduct commerce are far, far different than your person finances, JRM.
4
It;s 5:41 AM. I just. got out of bed. There are already 52 comments.
I am going to repost a number of comments I have made in the last few years. If you are tired of seeing them, please just skip them. It appears that many commennters and Prof Krugman disagree with the basic principles and history in them, and I believe they are relevant to the discussion.
Please feel free to tell me I am full of, er, it.
I am going to repost a number of comments I have made in the last few years. If you are tired of seeing them, please just skip them. It appears that many commennters and Prof Krugman disagree with the basic principles and history in them, and I believe they are relevant to the discussion.
Please feel free to tell me I am full of, er, it.
Growth is a relative thing. Picking coins off the sidewalk results in massive income growth if you have nothing, but it isn't a viable long term strategy. Likewise, all Chinese growth is just catch-up with the west, and it's easy when you are on a beaten path.
By contrast, growth in Japan has been slow for decades, and stimulus isn't making too much of a dent. Japan is a futuristic and high-tech country already.
Now let's cast a skeptical eye on the US. Does it look like Japan? I mean, physically, the stuff that you see in towns and cities? Well, no. Therefore, there actually is a significant scope for growth.
Progressive taxation should still be a priority of course.
By contrast, growth in Japan has been slow for decades, and stimulus isn't making too much of a dent. Japan is a futuristic and high-tech country already.
Now let's cast a skeptical eye on the US. Does it look like Japan? I mean, physically, the stuff that you see in towns and cities? Well, no. Therefore, there actually is a significant scope for growth.
Progressive taxation should still be a priority of course.
6
When centrists focus on growth, they ignore the distribution of this growth, which has been hogged by the very richest people for some time now. Growth will not work if the fruits of that growth are not widely shared.
15
Without shared growth we end up with starvation in one hand and obesity in the other. Growth should encompass more than growth for the control of surplus. It`s time to re-define growth and spend more time refining structure and thought.
1
In the Eternal Cult of Republican Nonsense, there is one thing which is immune from accountability, one thing that never "has to be paid for." It's the center of their being, and their single interest in governing and winning elections. It's the whole purpose of government since Reagan, and literally defines whether or not an administration was successful, regardless of the destruction wrought to millions. Tax cuts, and the elimination of progressivity in the tax code.
Don't bother telling a Republican that upper end tax cuts have never produced general prosperity or "paid for themselves". Everyone in the Cult knows, just knows, that they do. And the entire right wing echo chamber exists to keep them believing the fantasy.
Don't bother telling a Republican that upper end tax cuts have never produced general prosperity or "paid for themselves". Everyone in the Cult knows, just knows, that they do. And the entire right wing echo chamber exists to keep them believing the fantasy.
17
A most lucid observation!
Professor Krugman writes "[W]hat do we know about accelerating long-run growth?" His answer is basically "Not much." That's because he's projecting again. Economists and MBAs can only think in simplistic dollar terms. They are focusing on money because the light is better over there, and the real answers are in the shadows.
Think about time. Kind of hard, isn't it. But what if we converted some larger fraction of our recreational time to investment purposes? Then those investments would increase our future productivity and lead to more long-run growth. That is the kind of visionary government policies that NONE of the big-money politicians on either side can possibly visualize. Hillary, too, but much more so the Donald.
Okay, eclipsed by Trump again, but at this point anyone who is trying to argue for Trump is arguing in favor of a decapitation strike on America. We'll see soon enough.
Think about time. Kind of hard, isn't it. But what if we converted some larger fraction of our recreational time to investment purposes? Then those investments would increase our future productivity and lead to more long-run growth. That is the kind of visionary government policies that NONE of the big-money politicians on either side can possibly visualize. Hillary, too, but much more so the Donald.
Okay, eclipsed by Trump again, but at this point anyone who is trying to argue for Trump is arguing in favor of a decapitation strike on America. We'll see soon enough.
1
If much of America's wealth has found it's way to the top and failed to "Trickle" (!) down, the obvious course of action is to force it to flow back into the American economy where it can do some good. Remember; that money only "Trickles" down.
I don't like the idea of commandeering wealth but the fact remains that those with the wealth are not putting it to good use. They may be investing it in blue chip stocks or elaborate offerings promising pie in the sky, or worse, investing that wealth outside the country, but this is America and we have to do what is best for Americans.
The only alternative I can think of besides forcing wealthy to pay taxes is to sell infrastructure rebuilding and building bonds to the wealthy. This of course would require a return on investment, and I thought, well, just charge a meager toll to use that bridge or roadway to pay a dividend back to the investors. This way, the wealthy will agree to infrastructure spending and additionally, the existence of tolls will help alleviate roadway overcrowding and curb energy use that contributes to emissions that cause global warming.
Remember, wealth is massed at the top and only "Trickles" down and forcing taxes on the wealthy is viewed negatively, so use a carrot and stick approach. Leverage the money, don't just take it which only prompts the wealthy to hide it or export their wealth. Work with the rich.
I don't like the idea of commandeering wealth but the fact remains that those with the wealth are not putting it to good use. They may be investing it in blue chip stocks or elaborate offerings promising pie in the sky, or worse, investing that wealth outside the country, but this is America and we have to do what is best for Americans.
The only alternative I can think of besides forcing wealthy to pay taxes is to sell infrastructure rebuilding and building bonds to the wealthy. This of course would require a return on investment, and I thought, well, just charge a meager toll to use that bridge or roadway to pay a dividend back to the investors. This way, the wealthy will agree to infrastructure spending and additionally, the existence of tolls will help alleviate roadway overcrowding and curb energy use that contributes to emissions that cause global warming.
Remember, wealth is massed at the top and only "Trickles" down and forcing taxes on the wealthy is viewed negatively, so use a carrot and stick approach. Leverage the money, don't just take it which only prompts the wealthy to hide it or export their wealth. Work with the rich.
1
Trickle-down does not work. Bush1 tried that economic point of view and it did not work. It does not lead to economic growth. In the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations growth fell to negative levels; cutting taxes for the most wealthy does not lead to income growth, income decreased after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993; the data shows that cutting the top tax rate does not instigate wage growth; reducing the top tax rate does not lead to job creation - the largest increase of 2.9% occurred in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, and three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The stats strongly shows that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will not improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. Ref: http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons
What a sad comment on our current situation that for someone to put forth a economic plan that is honest, accurate, and fair is said to require courage. Who are we when dealing honestly with reality is seen as brave?
31
I'm surprised you say that increased infrastructure spending may increase economic growth but we shouldn't count on it. Isn't the spending by government during WWII the reason the economy grew substantially ending the Great Depression? While the super rich today don't want to invest due to weak demand and want their political friends to bring down their taxes, I'm sure many would be happy to buy US bonds with money that would be used to upgrade our transportation systems and othe projects and otherwise only be used to buy stocks and offshore bank accounts doing nothing for our economy.
3
Right Lester, and the bonds we sell would lock in today's extremely low interest rates. Alternately we could sell bonds to the FED which could create money to buy them. Since the FED returns the interest, this might even be better. Since we can still produce more stuff, goods and services, to soak up the new money, this would not produce excessive inflation.
2
We have the clash of two important "E-Words" Economy and Emotion. Dr. Krugman is right in the sense that we can, and should, do more to stimulate the economy and that should pay for itself over time given the extremely low rates of interest being paid now.
Unfortunately, the drumbeat from the Right is driving up the fear emotions about the huge debt that would be increased if the government actively pursues driving growth through public spending. Given the current micro-economic conditions of the majority of Americans, the thought of additional debt, beginning at the personal level, is anathema. Add to the emotional mix, that the middle income segment of the economy is shouldering the majority of the burden of funding the government because the wealthy and the corporations are getting off paying a lower percentage of their incomes to the government that makes their wealth possible. The result is a mass of Americans to whom the idea of spending is outrageous.
Unfortunately, the fear-filled mind cannot process the logic. We don't have an FDR who can remind us that "fear itself" is our greatest enemy. Without that, the purveyors of fear are winning the argument to continue to give the wealthiest more cash to use for more speculation as though that is the way to everyone getting wealthier.
Unfortunately, the drumbeat from the Right is driving up the fear emotions about the huge debt that would be increased if the government actively pursues driving growth through public spending. Given the current micro-economic conditions of the majority of Americans, the thought of additional debt, beginning at the personal level, is anathema. Add to the emotional mix, that the middle income segment of the economy is shouldering the majority of the burden of funding the government because the wealthy and the corporations are getting off paying a lower percentage of their incomes to the government that makes their wealth possible. The result is a mass of Americans to whom the idea of spending is outrageous.
Unfortunately, the fear-filled mind cannot process the logic. We don't have an FDR who can remind us that "fear itself" is our greatest enemy. Without that, the purveyors of fear are winning the argument to continue to give the wealthiest more cash to use for more speculation as though that is the way to everyone getting wealthier.
7
Our basic economic problem is relatively simple and easy to understand. We don't have to resort to vague undefined ideas like secular stagnation or supply side v. demand side to understand it. It's just arithmetic. All you have to do is to follow the money. We just have to get people to understand this. It is hard because people think the finances of our gov are the same as their personal finances, and that is just wrong.
People simply do not have enough money to spend. Regulations have not prevented us from producing enough stuff, products and services. Now it certainly is true that inequality exacerbates this problem. Too much of the money that is in the private sector is held by the Rich who spend a smaller percentage and use the rest to speculate. We have to get more money to the people who need it and will spend it.
Where does money come from?
Well, it could come from abroad if we had a positive trade balance, but we do not and there is good reason to believe we will not in the future (see the Triffin Dilemma). In fact, the trade deficit is one of the reasons we do not have enough money because it has been strongly negative since the mid '90's.
The only other place that can supply money to the private sector is the federal gov. When it spends, money flows in; when it taxes money flows out. The difference, called the deficit, tells us how much money is flowing net into the economy.
But the deficit has been cut by 75% since 2009.
This is our root problem.
People simply do not have enough money to spend. Regulations have not prevented us from producing enough stuff, products and services. Now it certainly is true that inequality exacerbates this problem. Too much of the money that is in the private sector is held by the Rich who spend a smaller percentage and use the rest to speculate. We have to get more money to the people who need it and will spend it.
Where does money come from?
Well, it could come from abroad if we had a positive trade balance, but we do not and there is good reason to believe we will not in the future (see the Triffin Dilemma). In fact, the trade deficit is one of the reasons we do not have enough money because it has been strongly negative since the mid '90's.
The only other place that can supply money to the private sector is the federal gov. When it spends, money flows in; when it taxes money flows out. The difference, called the deficit, tells us how much money is flowing net into the economy.
But the deficit has been cut by 75% since 2009.
This is our root problem.
23
A lot of ills get fixed when growth is 3% rather than 2% - so that needs to be a focus. The US's population is still growing (as opposed to Europe) so some combination of fiscal encouragement and focused productivity improvement should be an achievable goal.
2
There were economists that predicted 2008 and their argument is easy to understand. The first thing to realize is that the federal deficit measures the flow of money FROM the federal government TO the private sector.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare. net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you- cannot-consider-the- ... shows what happened.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare. net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you- cannot-consider-the- ... shows what happened.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
4
Hillary can easily piggyback her economic development plan to the path created ingeniously by President Obama. While the nation is screaming for infrastructure repairs, newer innovations are going to be back on the table with bullet train not only for passenger travel but with long distance freight transport. Reviving the manned space program along with a total upgrade of the Government's online hardware and firewall in software will bring people out of the woodwork back into both private and public sectors. The defense industry will continue to thrive as will the swords into plowshares that always accompanies one another. Reducing incarceration rates by rebuilding the black and hispanic communities that began to thrive under her husband's administration will pay huge dividends. There are more new initiatives waiting for us in the 21st Century. It's time to move forward, not backwards.
10
A sensible column! Trouble is, the Republican party is not one of sense.
When reading Prof Krugman's columns I expect due regard for the opposing arguments before he exposes the errors and mistakes. Mr Krugman is all about revealing the inadequacy of proposed right wing economic solutions. I admire his erudition but this year it is like hearing someone yell in a flood, "Who left the tap on?"
With Trump, the Republican party has disengaged from real and substantive arguments. They have effectively run the plank of moral conservatism to its necessary end. Trump is out there for all to see. The emperor has no clothes. Why go along with the pretence that the Republican Party is engaged in defending real and meaningful arguments?
This year it is unimaginable that this is about the usual back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans.
This year it is about rejecting the final act in the ongoing tragedy of Republican degeneracy.
The cast is large: W enters with Trump bringing in the last act. Supporting actors: Atwater, Rove, Limbaugh, Delay, Gingrich, Hannity, Ailes, Palin, Rumsfeld, Greenspan, Cheney, Boehner, Cantor, NRA, Koch brothers, Adelson, Scalia.
Truly, a who's who of wretched humanity where compassion and humanitarian impulses have rotted and died - if they had lived at all.
One thing binds them all: an inability to think of others who are not like themselves.
It is with great hope that this is the last act for this cast but not for our country.
When reading Prof Krugman's columns I expect due regard for the opposing arguments before he exposes the errors and mistakes. Mr Krugman is all about revealing the inadequacy of proposed right wing economic solutions. I admire his erudition but this year it is like hearing someone yell in a flood, "Who left the tap on?"
With Trump, the Republican party has disengaged from real and substantive arguments. They have effectively run the plank of moral conservatism to its necessary end. Trump is out there for all to see. The emperor has no clothes. Why go along with the pretence that the Republican Party is engaged in defending real and meaningful arguments?
This year it is unimaginable that this is about the usual back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans.
This year it is about rejecting the final act in the ongoing tragedy of Republican degeneracy.
The cast is large: W enters with Trump bringing in the last act. Supporting actors: Atwater, Rove, Limbaugh, Delay, Gingrich, Hannity, Ailes, Palin, Rumsfeld, Greenspan, Cheney, Boehner, Cantor, NRA, Koch brothers, Adelson, Scalia.
Truly, a who's who of wretched humanity where compassion and humanitarian impulses have rotted and died - if they had lived at all.
One thing binds them all: an inability to think of others who are not like themselves.
It is with great hope that this is the last act for this cast but not for our country.
119
The tendency of both Krugman and his critics among the responders to focus on the precise location of Clinton's program along the political spectrum diverts attention from the only issue that matters. Voters will not care much about whether the Democratic nominee's proposals flirt with socialism or bear a slight resemblance to the ideas of moderate conservatives.
For most of the electorate the key question relates to the platform's impact on economic growth and inequality. Will a Clinton presidency produce better paying jobs, along with a stronger social safety net? Those are the twin standards by which a skeptical body politic will judge the first woman chief executive.
The election itself, from this perspective, will hinge on voter reaction to Clinton's sober optimism, as opposed to Trump's grandiose promises. While the personal baggage entangling each candidate somewhat clouds the message conveyed by the polls, Clinton's substantial lead strongly suggests that most Americans prefer her adult approach over Trump's vague fantasies.
We cannot be sure a Clinton presidency will help restore a more broad-based prosperity, but we need not doubt that her vastly superior competence will steer the ship of state in the right direction far more skillfully than would an unstable Donald Trump unequipped even with proper navigation charts.
For most of the electorate the key question relates to the platform's impact on economic growth and inequality. Will a Clinton presidency produce better paying jobs, along with a stronger social safety net? Those are the twin standards by which a skeptical body politic will judge the first woman chief executive.
The election itself, from this perspective, will hinge on voter reaction to Clinton's sober optimism, as opposed to Trump's grandiose promises. While the personal baggage entangling each candidate somewhat clouds the message conveyed by the polls, Clinton's substantial lead strongly suggests that most Americans prefer her adult approach over Trump's vague fantasies.
We cannot be sure a Clinton presidency will help restore a more broad-based prosperity, but we need not doubt that her vastly superior competence will steer the ship of state in the right direction far more skillfully than would an unstable Donald Trump unequipped even with proper navigation charts.
127
It occurs to me, as a guy who has met with enough success scrambling much of his life to keep things together for wife and kids, that there was enough in our nation to keep things afloat. I'm old now, the kids are grown and the old lady ran off. Not a scenario I envisioned, but acceptable and better than a lot of others.
However I don't think I'd make it today as well as I did. There isn't the fat in the level of society where I made my living. Small independent businesses such as the marine towing and repair, coffee roasting, house painting and general hustling that paid the bills and allowed us to take vacations don't seem to be supported like they were thirty to thirty five years ago. Steel, furniture and auto plants at the upper end which allowed me to provide all kinds of services to those who had steady secure and decent paying jobs just don't exist.
Those jobs were shipped overseas and the differece in wages went to the top leaving those who used to hire guys like me in a worse position than I ever was. For them the American dream just disappeared while for the owners lavish became their lifestyle.
When our sitting President early in his tenure called in the business leaders for what many thought was a stiff talk they left the meeting not chastised but assured business would stay on top and there would be no trickle down.
There a lot among us who aren't OK and higher taxes on the wealthy won't help much. I hope she gets the message, the business owners haven't.
However I don't think I'd make it today as well as I did. There isn't the fat in the level of society where I made my living. Small independent businesses such as the marine towing and repair, coffee roasting, house painting and general hustling that paid the bills and allowed us to take vacations don't seem to be supported like they were thirty to thirty five years ago. Steel, furniture and auto plants at the upper end which allowed me to provide all kinds of services to those who had steady secure and decent paying jobs just don't exist.
Those jobs were shipped overseas and the differece in wages went to the top leaving those who used to hire guys like me in a worse position than I ever was. For them the American dream just disappeared while for the owners lavish became their lifestyle.
When our sitting President early in his tenure called in the business leaders for what many thought was a stiff talk they left the meeting not chastised but assured business would stay on top and there would be no trickle down.
There a lot among us who aren't OK and higher taxes on the wealthy won't help much. I hope she gets the message, the business owners haven't.
5
@ Ian. This is a really thoughtful post. But it contains a trope that has become an article of faith. And since it is incorrect, it drives a lot of bad ideas (or, in the case of Trump, justifies a lot of ugliness and bigotry). The trope is that "all the manufacturing jobs went overseas." In fact, we are still the world's largest manufacturer. We actually build more products and equipment in this country than we have ever done before. Only about 15% of manufacturing has been eliminated by "globalization," which is the euphemism most people use for "shipping jobs overseas." Fully 85% of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have been eliminated by technology; robotics and automation. You will never convince a business executive to dis-invest in the robot that now does the work of twelve employees, and does it more quickly and precisely, so that those twelve displaced workers can have their jobs back. We *could* retrain the displaced workers to do something else more suited to the automated workplace. But that costs money and we have a political party that is determined to obstruct spending it. We *could* reinvigorate enforcement of our labor laws to make it possible to unionize the service economy, the low-paying jobs where many of the formerly high-paid workers have ended up. But, again: the Republicans. We could also invest in our crumbling infrastructure. Let's see if we can name the group that has been obstructing that for the past eight years...
1
You are 100% right and it was my mistake not to mention that reality, but sometimes I get so balled up with frustration I misplace thoughts. Robotics certainly has been incorporated and while investor/owners profit, the workforce replaced by automation was left to flip burgers.
Some will excuse this as the American Way, but so was slaughtering Native Americans who still have to eke out a living on the "rez" and Black Americans who suffered a similar fate.
Profits are great and some way must be determined to share them beyond real estate, servants, world travel and mega yachts.
Socialism is lmore palatable than the other "ism" but it is easy to understand how some among us have no qualms about rolling heads. The lead of this commentary "Wisdom, Courage and the Economy" has more truth than the poetry Mr Krugman fleshed out and if we don't heed thoughts of this nature we are begging our kids to rise up.
Enough is enough and most of us, including the owners and stockholders Republican or Democrat know it.
Some will excuse this as the American Way, but so was slaughtering Native Americans who still have to eke out a living on the "rez" and Black Americans who suffered a similar fate.
Profits are great and some way must be determined to share them beyond real estate, servants, world travel and mega yachts.
Socialism is lmore palatable than the other "ism" but it is easy to understand how some among us have no qualms about rolling heads. The lead of this commentary "Wisdom, Courage and the Economy" has more truth than the poetry Mr Krugman fleshed out and if we don't heed thoughts of this nature we are begging our kids to rise up.
Enough is enough and most of us, including the owners and stockholders Republican or Democrat know it.
1
Not only do we know what works, we know what doesn't. Taxation policies that allow the concentration of income and wealth do NOT stimulate growth, we now have thirty years of negative proof on that subject.
Social Unrest is another brake on growth/ Right Wing "NeoCon" policies extractive policies in our poorest communities hare a proximate cause of the social unrest we see. People who see themselves losing ground every year eventually lash out, rebuilding the Safety Net and encouraging productive investment in our poorest communities (And not just "Training" & "Education" or more Prisons) might help stimulate growth.
At this point, a percentage of the potential American labor force is locked out of the wider American economy, other than the potential for illegal markets (Drugs) or as the occupants of the Prison-Industrial complex.
Meanwhile, whatever we agree on, Republicans in Congress will continue to hold their breath and say "No, No, No, Never!" and refuse to govern. The source of our problems (the GOP) continues to be the biggest barrier to any solution.
GOP Delanda Est
Social Unrest is another brake on growth/ Right Wing "NeoCon" policies extractive policies in our poorest communities hare a proximate cause of the social unrest we see. People who see themselves losing ground every year eventually lash out, rebuilding the Safety Net and encouraging productive investment in our poorest communities (And not just "Training" & "Education" or more Prisons) might help stimulate growth.
At this point, a percentage of the potential American labor force is locked out of the wider American economy, other than the potential for illegal markets (Drugs) or as the occupants of the Prison-Industrial complex.
Meanwhile, whatever we agree on, Republicans in Congress will continue to hold their breath and say "No, No, No, Never!" and refuse to govern. The source of our problems (the GOP) continues to be the biggest barrier to any solution.
GOP Delanda Est
41
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
1
Clinton Derangement has been alive and well since she was in the Arkansas Governor's mansion. But let's ignore that, shall we?
7
If the increases are to pay for new programs for the collective good, why is it just "some of you will have to pay higher taxes" rather than "we all will have to pay a little more"? That would be more courageous than letting a big majority confiscate other people's money to get new free stuff. And people would think more about whether new programs were actually worth it if there were some cost associated with them.
It would make sense to reallocate the current tax burden so it falls more on the wealthy, but that is a totally different issue from adding new programs. The two should not be conflated.
It would make sense to reallocate the current tax burden so it falls more on the wealthy, but that is a totally different issue from adding new programs. The two should not be conflated.
Only "Some" have any money left to pay (read return) back the extra sawbucks they unfairly benefited from in the first place. The rest of the country barely lives paycheck to paycheck. That sector is simply a financial vacuum.
As for giving "free stuff" you're surely referring to the working poor, their children, and the disabled. It's a wonder that such animosity exists for the real at home American citizens. Must be comfortable taking shots at them from Paris.
As for giving "free stuff" you're surely referring to the working poor, their children, and the disabled. It's a wonder that such animosity exists for the real at home American citizens. Must be comfortable taking shots at them from Paris.
3
Spot on. Though believe this line should have read, "if only the G.O.P. had nominated someone sane."
1
Sanity is relative in the republican party these days. None if the other 16 candidates had any real plans to follow the American people's needs. Without one republican vote President Obama worked with "We the People" to adjust, taking two or more jobs, working far below our educational knowledge and experience. We pride ourselves to get food on the table, change our living arrangements through foreclosures and bankruptcy. Everyone has a story that the republicans are not a part of, at all.
1
Paul,
Under both Reagan, old man Bushie, and, Clinton, and definitely under drunk man Bushie....they all practiced....
"trickle down economics". Cut taxes and hope that Bill Gates, instead of spending all his wealth in Africa, would spend it here in the US like Carnegie did by building libraries everywhere.
But, the rich did NOT reach out to help the country that helped them.
So, maybe we know that "trickle down" is failed, and, well, should do something different?
As the movie so clearly noted, "Not Sure".
Under both Reagan, old man Bushie, and, Clinton, and definitely under drunk man Bushie....they all practiced....
"trickle down economics". Cut taxes and hope that Bill Gates, instead of spending all his wealth in Africa, would spend it here in the US like Carnegie did by building libraries everywhere.
But, the rich did NOT reach out to help the country that helped them.
So, maybe we know that "trickle down" is failed, and, well, should do something different?
As the movie so clearly noted, "Not Sure".
3
Right. Except Clinton raised taxes and incomes improved across all workers and socioeconomic groups. He was not a trickle down advocate.
4
President Clinton did more for the middle class than any of the republican presidents. Along with President Obama we outlasted the negative efforts by those 1%eyed greed makers.
4
But under Clinton private debt exploded because not enough money was coming to the private sector from the federal government. This contributed to the financial crisis 8 years later.
'After all, what do we actually know how to do when it comes to economic policy?
We do,' - in fact, know how to provide 'affordable' essential health care to everyone; most advanced countries do it.
We know how to provide not only basic security in retirement. We know how to provide 'secure' and well paying jobs - and we know quite a lot about how not only to raise the incomes of low-paid workers - but also how to create jobs for them by bringing back manufacturing. We thus know how ro reduce the Trade deficit and how to become a producing and exporting country (again) - and we know - by doing all of this we would make it impossible for Insane Racist Birther by getting so many votes from angry and depressed workers. And we know very well - that all we you have to do is to give young Americans hope without the burden of outrageous tuiton costs - and give the older Americans enough paid vacations that they never, ever will vote for Insane Racist Birthers.
All of this we know!
So why don't we do it?
We do,' - in fact, know how to provide 'affordable' essential health care to everyone; most advanced countries do it.
We know how to provide not only basic security in retirement. We know how to provide 'secure' and well paying jobs - and we know quite a lot about how not only to raise the incomes of low-paid workers - but also how to create jobs for them by bringing back manufacturing. We thus know how ro reduce the Trade deficit and how to become a producing and exporting country (again) - and we know - by doing all of this we would make it impossible for Insane Racist Birther by getting so many votes from angry and depressed workers. And we know very well - that all we you have to do is to give young Americans hope without the burden of outrageous tuiton costs - and give the older Americans enough paid vacations that they never, ever will vote for Insane Racist Birthers.
All of this we know!
So why don't we do it?
11
That's why we need two Democratic Presidents in a row, to change the direction of the courts, and provide sanity back to our Government and Society.
2
and after having been reminded by John Oliver about the Subprime Car Loan Crisis and how little we actually have learned from the last Subrime Loan Crisis - we know all of this very well - but we actually don't do anything about it?
Like - how long are US economists and Hillary going to watch what has been done to the poorest of the poor in the US - before they do something about?
When somebody like Bernie runs at the next election and wins?
Like - how long are US economists and Hillary going to watch what has been done to the poorest of the poor in the US - before they do something about?
When somebody like Bernie runs at the next election and wins?
1
Well the trajectory of the US economic history isn't all that mysterious. Reagan was mostly lucky in two respects: Oil prices plummeted due to a big drop in demand. This greatly benefited the average wage earner even while the top income earners was racing ahead in percentage of wealth. Secondly, early in his first term the FED run by Paul Volker decided to reverse course on the nagging inflation that wasn't responding to the traditional higher and higher interest rate strategy. He decided to lower the Interest rate dramatically. This significantly allowed for a surge in the entirety of the Real Estate and Construction Sectors putting large amounts of money into the middle class to buy homes, cars and trucks, and all manner of consumer products. Reagan also raised taxes in his second term as did Bush Sr. largely to offset the enormous amount of money being pumped into the top 10%. Clinton a Democrat was targeted taxes at the top bracket and the economy was humming with the tech sector booming as the newest industry.
Cheny- Bush Jr. started unfunded wars and defense spending while drastically lowering taxes. They handed the whole thing with the greatest financial crisis since the great depression to the first Black President and made every effort to undermine and obstruct him from making any progress to provide a recovery for the previous 28 years of money transfer to the top %.
Cheny- Bush Jr. started unfunded wars and defense spending while drastically lowering taxes. They handed the whole thing with the greatest financial crisis since the great depression to the first Black President and made every effort to undermine and obstruct him from making any progress to provide a recovery for the previous 28 years of money transfer to the top %.
29
"Secondly, early in his first term the FED run by Paul Volker decided to reverse course on the nagging inflation that wasn't responding to the traditional higher and higher interest rate strategy."
He reversed course because he had broken inflation's back with the interest rate hikes.
He reversed course because he had broken inflation's back with the interest rate hikes.
2
It's hard to increase productivity when most of the country's income is derived from service jobs, be they help-desk, fast-food or financial. Productivity increases come from doing stuff faster and is more easily done using machines in farms or factories. We've already mechanized/datorized/outsourced a lot of that. Maybe time to increase in-sourcing?
70
There are lots of jobs that are not service sector: Construction, medicine, mechanics, electricians, writers, of prose, poetry and computer codes, building airplanes, boats, cars, roads, and new video games. Space exploration, solar panels, science of cleaning up our oceans, air and lands are all up and coming careers. I could go on. We need to embrace education for our children and continuing education for everyone else. I think HRC gives us the best chance to focus on these kinds of things because she knows smart people who actually respect her and she's not nuts.
It seems to me that with all the technology we have, there is a big hole in applications support services. SO MANY do not know how to use the technology that is available to them, and their productivity thus suffers.
Most new jobs in America - trillions of dollars worth - in the last 15 years are in the quintessentially non-productive area of paying people to stand around, often in a uniform, to prevent anything out of the ordinary from happening - the so-called security business. HSA, TSA and DOD consume enormous amounts of the country's economic resources simply to "produce" a feeling of securit - to the extent, well reported in his new book by Steven Brill, that the radical Sunnis met their goal of economically weakening the US and other Western economies - probably "forever" until this massive waste of money is more throughtfully addressed.
As I show in the blog post linked below, we are nowhere close to full employment in the US right now. What might not be obvious from what I wrote is my belief that the US economy has not run close to potential anytime in the past 25 years, with the exception of a brief period in the late 90s. When the economy is artificially held back by a Fed which has unjustified fears of inflation, it should not be a surprise that productivity growth is poor.
Dr Krugman is a little worried about full employment, because the current unemployment rate is close to estimates of NAIRU (Non Accelerating Rate of Unemployment) However, you don't need NAIRU to explain stagflation in the 1970s. Stagflation happened in the 1970s because the Fed never kept interest rates high enough for long enough to bring wage growth down to sensible levels. As a result, they never killed off expectations of continued inflation.
Tax cuts have little to do with raising growth. The first step should be to fire Janet Yellen if she raises interest rates in the current environment. The next step should be to fire all the Fed governors who have been voting for higher rates. Today's low growth rates are the result of decades of bad Fed policy.
https://schrodingerblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-relationship-between-infl...
Dr Krugman is a little worried about full employment, because the current unemployment rate is close to estimates of NAIRU (Non Accelerating Rate of Unemployment) However, you don't need NAIRU to explain stagflation in the 1970s. Stagflation happened in the 1970s because the Fed never kept interest rates high enough for long enough to bring wage growth down to sensible levels. As a result, they never killed off expectations of continued inflation.
Tax cuts have little to do with raising growth. The first step should be to fire Janet Yellen if she raises interest rates in the current environment. The next step should be to fire all the Fed governors who have been voting for higher rates. Today's low growth rates are the result of decades of bad Fed policy.
https://schrodingerblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-relationship-between-infl...
US Debt to GDP has expanded from approximately 70% to 100% since Iraq War II. To contrast, Japan's Debt to GDP is close to 230%. The outcome in both cases is equivalent: low growth, low inflation, and low bond yields. Increased deficit spending for highly developed nations, when not in immediate response to a downturn, seems to make little difference in terms of long-run growth. However, public spending can affect the distribution of capital, and hence inequality. I suppose one could argue that the DoD is a public entity which also employs a large number of people and capital, but I rather have high-speed rail for my daily needs.
7
US debt to GDP was far higher after WWII than today and we experienced huge GDP growth in the years that followed with far higher taxes than today on the wealthy. The main difference was that housing costs were far lower, building meant that prices did not skyrocket even though home loans were plentiful due to VA loans and 30% of jobs were unionized whereas today it is 10%. Add in lower college and healthcare costs...
So, if the proof is in the pudding - we need to revisit that old recipe.
In fact, we never paid down that old war debt but by the late 1970's debt to GDP had fallen into the 39% range. How? Two things, inflation made the old debt small by comparison and GDP had grown substantially.
So, if the proof is in the pudding - we need to revisit that old recipe.
In fact, we never paid down that old war debt but by the late 1970's debt to GDP had fallen into the 39% range. How? Two things, inflation made the old debt small by comparison and GDP had grown substantially.
21
Peg is, of course, correct. Japan's problem is not its debt as can be seen by its low interest rates, but in its demographics and culture. They have a lot of old people who save their money, not spend it. That is why they have slow growth.
In the US we have the overhang from money flowing out of the private sector from 1996 to 2008. Giving money to the banks prevented another 1929, but it did not help the country grow since it did not get out into domestic commerce.. Since 2009 we have been cutting the deficit reducing it by 75% reducing the flow of money into the private sector. This is the reason for our slow growth.
In the US we have the overhang from money flowing out of the private sector from 1996 to 2008. Giving money to the banks prevented another 1929, but it did not help the country grow since it did not get out into domestic commerce.. Since 2009 we have been cutting the deficit reducing it by 75% reducing the flow of money into the private sector. This is the reason for our slow growth.
5
I'd be perfectly content with a reliable low-speed rail system. It's low-tech, low-maintenance, and low-energy. If I'm in a comfortable rail car, I don't need to get anywhere in a hurry. I can read, write, or work on my computer, or talk on the phone if I need to. None of which I can do while driving. So give me a nice, slow train.
1
What we know is better than what we hope. We know Obama's plan failed. If it was not for the Federal Reserve leaving interest rates low we would not even be where we are at now. A trillion dollars went to stimulus that ended up mostly in helping Obama's friends. Hillary is promising more of the same only bigger. No way most of her promises will pass and the ones getting any benefit are the rich. She is not going to go against wall street we all know that and doubling down on Obama's plan will not move us forward. Trump may not have the perfect plan but it is not a worse plan.
3
there is a trump plan? lol
3
First, we need a metric for GDP growth that excludes the 0.1% or at least the 1%. This will show that there has been no growth since the eighties.
Second, we need to clarify if we are looking at per capita growth or total. Birth rates were mentioned, but not (gasp, dare I say) immigration.
Second, we need to clarify if we are looking at per capita growth or total. Birth rates were mentioned, but not (gasp, dare I say) immigration.
4
The need for Wisdom is exaggerated; the real need is to remove the idealogical blinders left wing economists - such as Krugman - continue to wear and impart upon our liberal government officials. Let's see: China's GDP growth rate is slowing in 2016 - to 6.5% from 6.9% in 2015. India's is actually forecasted to exceed China's this year at about 7%. There are a host of other nations with growth rates 4X and 5X that of the US's. What do their leaders know that ours don't?
Well for one - go easier on the banks; they are being smothered into non-risk taking; and their is a left wing agenda for that purpose; squeeze them hard - real hard ala Liz Warren - until they dissolve. Ain't helping the economy but who cares. And then their is this administration's war with corporate America; HRC promises to raise its taxes further; when the US already has the highest corp tax rate. Throw in the hundreds of regulations aimed at businesses issued by Obama and it's a wonder any investment occurs.
Investment creates jobs and creates demand and create jobs... Ain't happening with Krugman as the Boss.
Well for one - go easier on the banks; they are being smothered into non-risk taking; and their is a left wing agenda for that purpose; squeeze them hard - real hard ala Liz Warren - until they dissolve. Ain't helping the economy but who cares. And then their is this administration's war with corporate America; HRC promises to raise its taxes further; when the US already has the highest corp tax rate. Throw in the hundreds of regulations aimed at businesses issued by Obama and it's a wonder any investment occurs.
Investment creates jobs and creates demand and create jobs... Ain't happening with Krugman as the Boss.
3
" US already has the highest corp tax rate."
One of the many myths propagated by conservatives is that our corporate taxes are high compared to other countries. It is true that our nominal rate of 35% is high, but because of loopholes, this figure is meaningless.
A good parameter to look at is total corporate taxes actually paid divided by GDP because neither of these figures can be fudged by corporations. If you look at developed countries, you will see that Norway has the highest value at 12.5%. The US is tied with Turkey for the lowest at 1.8%. If you look at all the countries touted by conservatives as low tax countries such as Ireland or Canada, you will see that their corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP are higher. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-o...
In addition, during the Great Prosperity, 1946 - 1973, this figure was about 3 times higher than today
It seems to me that if our real corporate taxes were in line with the rest of the world or maybe even higher than the average, corporations would think twice about leaving piles of cash lying around and would reinvest them to avoid paying tax.
One of the many myths propagated by conservatives is that our corporate taxes are high compared to other countries. It is true that our nominal rate of 35% is high, but because of loopholes, this figure is meaningless.
A good parameter to look at is total corporate taxes actually paid divided by GDP because neither of these figures can be fudged by corporations. If you look at developed countries, you will see that Norway has the highest value at 12.5%. The US is tied with Turkey for the lowest at 1.8%. If you look at all the countries touted by conservatives as low tax countries such as Ireland or Canada, you will see that their corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP are higher. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-o...
In addition, during the Great Prosperity, 1946 - 1973, this figure was about 3 times higher than today
It seems to me that if our real corporate taxes were in line with the rest of the world or maybe even higher than the average, corporations would think twice about leaving piles of cash lying around and would reinvest them to avoid paying tax.
8
We also know that trickle down economics have not worked for the majority of people the world over. The promise I'd like to hear is that someone will rid the international financial institutions that run the global economy of the neo-liberal economic theories that have impoverished countries, cities and individuals. I'd also like someone to explain how all the debt in the world will ever get paid back.
20
“The promise I'd like to hear is that someone will rid the international financial institutions that run the global economy of the neo-liberal economic theories that have impoverished countries, cities and individuals.”
They will be rid of those theories not by someone, but by the facts. It has already been happening during the last few years. Don’t despair.
“I'd also like someone to explain how all the debt in the world will ever get paid back.”
It will never be paid back, not by you, not by our children, not by your grandchildren, not by anybody. This is one of the erroneous “neo-liberal economic theories” that we have to be rid of.
Debt is simply rolled over: new debt is issued to repay the old debt and its interest. This works as long as countries don’t (a) let debt get too large (a subject in itself), and (b) don’t threaten debtholders with non-payment (or its first cousin, renegotiation).
They will be rid of those theories not by someone, but by the facts. It has already been happening during the last few years. Don’t despair.
“I'd also like someone to explain how all the debt in the world will ever get paid back.”
It will never be paid back, not by you, not by our children, not by your grandchildren, not by anybody. This is one of the erroneous “neo-liberal economic theories” that we have to be rid of.
Debt is simply rolled over: new debt is issued to repay the old debt and its interest. This works as long as countries don’t (a) let debt get too large (a subject in itself), and (b) don’t threaten debtholders with non-payment (or its first cousin, renegotiation).
1
Actually Keynes, as 1946 - 1973 showed in the US even though we INCREASED the debt by 75% it became insignificant because we used the money to invest in America.
4
Paul, you pushed for Clinton's "incremental vision and modest economic agenda" during the primary. With GDP at only 1.5 percent, a progressive candidate would be calling for "substantially more infrastructure spending and more borrowing to pay for it" as you have suggested, but clearly Clinton did not make that case during her economic speech.
"After all, what do we actually know how to do when it comes to economic policy? We do, in fact, know how to provide essential health care to everyone; most advanced countries do it. We know how to provide basic security in retirement. We know quite a lot about how to raise the incomes of low-paid workers."
These were the positions of one of the candidates during the primary. Hint: it wasn't Clinton.
"After all, what do we actually know how to do when it comes to economic policy? We do, in fact, know how to provide essential health care to everyone; most advanced countries do it. We know how to provide basic security in retirement. We know quite a lot about how to raise the incomes of low-paid workers."
These were the positions of one of the candidates during the primary. Hint: it wasn't Clinton.
50
Unfortunately, while I loved Sanders policies he was not the candidate that demonstrated any knowledge of how to achieve single payer, and the other wonderful ideas he put forward. I was initially excited and kept waiting for the details. Instead the same stump speech over and over again. Identifying the problems -- crucial -- but then solutions need to be proposed. Aside from taxes on very high earners and Wall Street transactions to fund tuition at public universities, how was this to be achieved? Not certain there was enough money even to fund this in these tax increases no matter how much a supported them, let along funding single payer (and exactly how were we to jettison the entire medical industrial insurance complex????) and needed infrastructure . He did show by example how to fund a primary campaign.
So NO, it was not the position of the non Clinton candidate.
So NO, it was not the position of the non Clinton candidate.
5
Tanaka wrote "while I loved Sanders policies he was not the candidate that demonstrated any knowledge of how to achieve single payer, and the other wonderful ideas he put forward."
If you had gone to Bernie's website you would have found "How Bernie pays for his proposals."
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
If you had gone to Bernie's website you would have found "How Bernie pays for his proposals."
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
3
I hope someday we know why Dr. Krugman trashed the only candidate who shared his economic vision.
3
You don't have to say, "Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes". You could say, "Here are the programs I am going to reduce or eliminate". Like, oil prices have dropped precipitously, and there is a global glut that is likely to keep prices low. I am therefore going to work to remove subsidies to the oil industry. No, that would be really brave!
77
The only thing that distinguishes Trump from the other Republican candidates is not the disturbing nature of their ideas but the overt vulgarity of words and behavior used to present those ideas.
77
What a complicated and rather unfocussed column. Tell us some simple things. For instance, how to provide access to good health care to all, at lower cost, like dozens of nations do. We still leave out millions, subsidize huge insurance/drug profits, and fights are going on now with United Health Care, on rising premiums.
Per NYT & NPR -- patients in ‘in-network’ hospitals often don’t know that their anesthetist or other doctors also treating them aren’t ‘in network’ with their insurance co. They get shocked by huge bills, after paying high premiums. They try to fight it. Hassle and costs that other countries don’t impose on their citizens.
Imagine if you’re in an auto accident or have a heart attack. An ambulance rushes you to the nearest hospital. Do you ask them if every doctor who might save your live is ‘in network’? If not, then say take me quick to another hospital? It’s ridiculous.
ACA is too unregulated, profit driven, and inferior to other countries. Will Clinton’s incremental policies solve this insult to citizens? Medical school abroad is subsidized, so doctors don’t have the individual burden of huge tuition debt to repay. A more intelligent and humane system. But maybe fewer millionaires?
Tell us how various nations pay for h/c---not all single payer—some use insurance co’s, but with negotiated prices.. Here, it’s a radical concept, thus off the table. First facts, then serenity and wisdom.
Per NYT & NPR -- patients in ‘in-network’ hospitals often don’t know that their anesthetist or other doctors also treating them aren’t ‘in network’ with their insurance co. They get shocked by huge bills, after paying high premiums. They try to fight it. Hassle and costs that other countries don’t impose on their citizens.
Imagine if you’re in an auto accident or have a heart attack. An ambulance rushes you to the nearest hospital. Do you ask them if every doctor who might save your live is ‘in network’? If not, then say take me quick to another hospital? It’s ridiculous.
ACA is too unregulated, profit driven, and inferior to other countries. Will Clinton’s incremental policies solve this insult to citizens? Medical school abroad is subsidized, so doctors don’t have the individual burden of huge tuition debt to repay. A more intelligent and humane system. But maybe fewer millionaires?
Tell us how various nations pay for h/c---not all single payer—some use insurance co’s, but with negotiated prices.. Here, it’s a radical concept, thus off the table. First facts, then serenity and wisdom.
92
“Tell us some simple things. For instance, how to provide access to good health care to all, at lower cost, like dozens of nations do.”
Let’s start with free single-payer insurance. Let’s study and understand how Canada and the UK do it, for example. Let’s not reinvent the wheel.
Remember that the expenditures do not go into a black hole. They are used to pay doctors, nurses, build hospitals, etc. They all pay taxes and consume goods and services, which create jobs, which pay additional taxes, etc. It’s called the multiplier effect. Some of the funds will be saved and some will be used to buy imports.
Let’s start with free single-payer insurance. Let’s study and understand how Canada and the UK do it, for example. Let’s not reinvent the wheel.
Remember that the expenditures do not go into a black hole. They are used to pay doctors, nurses, build hospitals, etc. They all pay taxes and consume goods and services, which create jobs, which pay additional taxes, etc. It’s called the multiplier effect. Some of the funds will be saved and some will be used to buy imports.
6
I would argue that a big percentage of the "prime age adults" that are declining in participation from the workforce are women who have left the workforce to care for children, aging parents or both and then are unable to re-enter the workforce. When a skilled, professional woman leaves the American workforce for more than a year (depending on her field) she has slim to no chance of reentering her career unless she is very well connected or gets a lucky break. The American workforce is willing to write off a huge percentage of talented workers because companies are not required to hold their position (unpaid - for a number of years as in Western Europe) nor do most companies offer meaningful parental leave. That combined with the incredibly high cost of childcare and the emotional gratification of caring for one's own children means we hemorrhage women in their 30s and they may not return. Ms. Clinton has policy proposals to address nearly every significant reason we lose women in the workforce - helping to retain and re-enter women in the workforce would lead to economic growth. I'm not an economist - but I don't mind playing one from my couch!
593
How nice of you to think of women with jobs that have benefits like caretaker benefits. I hope you hear my scorn and sarcasm. Prime age women who were laid off and don't find a position immediately have an even harder time than those with caretaker benefits. Employers automatically assume they must have something wrong with them to have been stupid enough to be laid off, stale because anyone that stupid obviously lets their decades of experience and knowledge fall right out their ears, and are job hoppers if they try to be employed through serial short term contract work that anyone who has watched a fed episodes of Criminal Minds knows must be a psychopathic serial killer.
So , no! Adult prime workers are not having time exercising their benefits, employer given or federally mandated. They are trying to get benefits, like paid sick time or gasp, a job that does not end in a month or two no matter how high your productivity stats are.
So , no! Adult prime workers are not having time exercising their benefits, employer given or federally mandated. They are trying to get benefits, like paid sick time or gasp, a job that does not end in a month or two no matter how high your productivity stats are.
2
I had to start my own company in order to get re-hired into the US economy after caring for my mom, not everyone has that option. You don't even get rejection letters very often just the dark silence of the telephone not ringing.
6
Women are not the only ones who risk losing their place when they step out of the labor force for any reason. Men have also taken time off from work to raise children, care for parents, and help siblings. There really is no mystery as to why labor force participation has diminished, or why productivity is not increasing as fast as expected; people are tired of slaving their lives away for little or nothing in return, and they also feel cheated because they did not benefit from the increases in productivity that occurred in the recent past.
We are seeing a turning away from the American consumerist model of capitalism, where everyone has to be self-sufficient, own their own house, car, lawn mower, and never share anything. Society used to take care of its own, with a continuous circle of care giving, nurturing, working, and then helping to raise the young as the body grows weak. Never before have parents been expected to raise their children by themselves. Never before have people paid one group of people to care for their children, and another to care for their parents. It is unsustainable, and unnatural.
Being a profit center for somebody else gets old after a while, and people have had enough. There is more than enough work if we all agree to help each other out, but trying to squeeze every penny out of our neighbors is not the way to build a society. There is more than enough money to pay for the work, if we all share.
We are seeing a turning away from the American consumerist model of capitalism, where everyone has to be self-sufficient, own their own house, car, lawn mower, and never share anything. Society used to take care of its own, with a continuous circle of care giving, nurturing, working, and then helping to raise the young as the body grows weak. Never before have parents been expected to raise their children by themselves. Never before have people paid one group of people to care for their children, and another to care for their parents. It is unsustainable, and unnatural.
Being a profit center for somebody else gets old after a while, and people have had enough. There is more than enough work if we all agree to help each other out, but trying to squeeze every penny out of our neighbors is not the way to build a society. There is more than enough money to pay for the work, if we all share.
3
The nuances of whether Mrs. Clinton's economic policy is a center-left policy or not really doesn't matter to a hill of beans if Trump gets elected.
All Democrats and Independents need to put all differences aside and simply focus on one objective, electing Mrs. Clinton as President on November 8th.
That's all that matters when the alternative is Armageddon!
All Democrats and Independents need to put all differences aside and simply focus on one objective, electing Mrs. Clinton as President on November 8th.
That's all that matters when the alternative is Armageddon!
68
From the standpoint of the Earth and the future survivability of humanity slow growth is actually a good thing as it tends to decrease the rate at which we are poisoning our planet and ourselves.
32
Bravo–this is precisely the point. The predicate of Krugman's economics is that growth is always good. A creative theorist would seek ways to improve economic policy without the inconvenient "externalities" of wanton growth.
6
Why should the human race be confined to earth?
Ad astra per aspera!
Ad astra per aspera!
3
The human race should be confined to earth for the safety of life on all other planet in the universe.
3
"History makes slaves of kings" thus, Leo Tolstoy recognized that limits exist-- larger factors greatly diminish the power to shape national realities even when that power rests with a monarch. Yet, in this election, the economic policies of the candidates are of lesser importance, than say factors such as the perception of just how either of the candidates would lead, would shape the national dialog, would help to control matters of global concern.
Those who have carefully followed economic history since the great melt-down recall just how intransigent the Republican congress was regarding TARP-- how Republican reactionaries revolted against the President's 8 hundred billion "pump prime," and how the Republican's health care idea, realized by our president, is now a bad idea. And so it goes, with "cap and trade," immigration reform, you name it, the Republican brand is the party of "no" whose leader is its best presidential nominee: Trump-- no one in the national GOP leadership better embodies the negativity, the anti-government fervor, the illogical and elliptical thinking as this man. And so it goes that whether it be economics, global affairs, or the role of government, nothing that is stated bears much semblance to a constructive agenda.
Those who have carefully followed economic history since the great melt-down recall just how intransigent the Republican congress was regarding TARP-- how Republican reactionaries revolted against the President's 8 hundred billion "pump prime," and how the Republican's health care idea, realized by our president, is now a bad idea. And so it goes, with "cap and trade," immigration reform, you name it, the Republican brand is the party of "no" whose leader is its best presidential nominee: Trump-- no one in the national GOP leadership better embodies the negativity, the anti-government fervor, the illogical and elliptical thinking as this man. And so it goes that whether it be economics, global affairs, or the role of government, nothing that is stated bears much semblance to a constructive agenda.
36
I agree with Mr Krugman's attempt to cut through the noise with a camp analysis of Clinton's modest but doable proposals. They would no doubt improve matters but would do little to accelerate long term trends unless and until demographics improve the percentage of the working age population. A lot will depend on her choice of the team that will execute these policies. Will they be disciplined progressives nudging things in the right direction or a group similar to same Government Sachs team her husband put together which did their part to skew our economy to enrich the top 1%? Anything would be better than the certainty that a GOP team would continue the slide of wealth toward those who are already rich.
225
I am no apologist for Bill Clinton or his finance team, and still think going along with eliminating Glass Steagall and with enacting NAFTA were terrible errors on his part. But while income inequality grew, it is important to recognize that there were other developments that were very beneficial to persons other than the 1%.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
• Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/1/1465373/-Bill-Clinton-was-a-Great...
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
• Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/1/1465373/-Bill-Clinton-was-a-Great...
4
“Clinton's modest but doable proposals … would no doubt improve matters but would do little to accelerate long term trends unless and until demographics improve the percentage of the working age population.”
Actually we don’t have to wait that long.
On inauguration day raise the federal minimum wage by one dollar an hour and observe the results. You will be favorably surprised by the increase in the number of jobs created, the drop in the unemployment rate, the increase in GDP and the increase in productivity. Repeat after every six months until you reach $15 an hour. Watch Ms. Clinton’s popularity shoot upwards.
Then you will understand why there was so much obstruction to raising the federal minimum wage under President Obama.
Actually we don’t have to wait that long.
On inauguration day raise the federal minimum wage by one dollar an hour and observe the results. You will be favorably surprised by the increase in the number of jobs created, the drop in the unemployment rate, the increase in GDP and the increase in productivity. Repeat after every six months until you reach $15 an hour. Watch Ms. Clinton’s popularity shoot upwards.
Then you will understand why there was so much obstruction to raising the federal minimum wage under President Obama.
3
Tanaka, yeah, but all these accomplishments were done by borrowing from banks. Private debt exploded under Clinton. By cutting the federal deficits, he cut the flowing of money into the private sector eventually reversing it. Bush, of course, didn't help. as money still flowed OUT of the private sector (except for a brief period in 2003). The cumulative effect of all this stress on our banking system led straight to 2008.
And Bill Clinton did NOT eliminate Glass-Steagall. The name of the bill that DID repeal it was The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, good Republicans all. On Nov 4 1999 that bill was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. A veto would have been fruitless.
And Bill Clinton did NOT eliminate Glass-Steagall. The name of the bill that DID repeal it was The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, good Republicans all. On Nov 4 1999 that bill was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. A veto would have been fruitless.
7
Let's see if I follow GOP arguments about lowering taxes for the wealthy. To achieve this job-creating masterpiece of GDP growth, especially in light of President Obama's catastrophic ruination of the economy--lowering the jobless rate from near 11% to 4.9%, which Republicans everywhere are complaining about while having done all in their power to worsen it by inaction--along comes a complete amateur who opens his campaign with "wages are too high." Check.
Donald Trump is matched with Eisenhower Republican look-alike Hillary Clinton who has preached incrementalism--one step at a time--and has been pilloried for it. Check.
When one stops to think about it, all Republican fiscal policies--proposed and implemented--since Richard Nixon's days in office (1969-1974), the national economy has skewed to limited growth and higher CEO pay. Check.
This GOP happy hour, coupled with the loosening of organized labor's hold on the white working class's earning power and Ronald Reagan's silly and unworkable "supply side" nonsense--not to mention Reagan's hemorrhaging government spending orgy ("government is the problem") produced the smoke-and-mirrors that the GOP sold off to its blue-collar base. Check.
Mrs. Clinton will steer President Obama's stewardship of the economy out of the shallows; it was beached under W., a Republican, but who's keeping score? Oh, wait; Paul Manafort, running Trump's campaign while in the bag for $12 million out of a cutout in the Ukraine. Check.
Donald Trump is matched with Eisenhower Republican look-alike Hillary Clinton who has preached incrementalism--one step at a time--and has been pilloried for it. Check.
When one stops to think about it, all Republican fiscal policies--proposed and implemented--since Richard Nixon's days in office (1969-1974), the national economy has skewed to limited growth and higher CEO pay. Check.
This GOP happy hour, coupled with the loosening of organized labor's hold on the white working class's earning power and Ronald Reagan's silly and unworkable "supply side" nonsense--not to mention Reagan's hemorrhaging government spending orgy ("government is the problem") produced the smoke-and-mirrors that the GOP sold off to its blue-collar base. Check.
Mrs. Clinton will steer President Obama's stewardship of the economy out of the shallows; it was beached under W., a Republican, but who's keeping score? Oh, wait; Paul Manafort, running Trump's campaign while in the bag for $12 million out of a cutout in the Ukraine. Check.
301
You got it, Dr. K.
To get out of the deflation, we need massive infrastructure spending. Not only roads, bridges, and internet - but things like high speed rail between metropolitan areas (less pollution and dovetails nicely with a sharing economy that seems to be here to stay.)
Also, we need to make the power grid ready for the day when many U.S. households will be net producers of energy. Money is congealed energy, and when homes are producing energy they will have more discretionary income to spend.
Quoting the serenity prayer while the sky is falling won't be efficacious. Thus, Mrs. Clinton needs to think big proactively. Taxes on the super rich for infrastructure can be sold by insisting that they will make money when demand for goods increases. Failure to do this will mean further stagnation, or a redux of the 1930s. Or probably a much more violent version of the 1930s.
Hence, Hillary Rodham Clinton might as well act like FDR from the start of her administration, signaling a new day for the Democrats and the country as a whole.
To get out of the deflation, we need massive infrastructure spending. Not only roads, bridges, and internet - but things like high speed rail between metropolitan areas (less pollution and dovetails nicely with a sharing economy that seems to be here to stay.)
Also, we need to make the power grid ready for the day when many U.S. households will be net producers of energy. Money is congealed energy, and when homes are producing energy they will have more discretionary income to spend.
Quoting the serenity prayer while the sky is falling won't be efficacious. Thus, Mrs. Clinton needs to think big proactively. Taxes on the super rich for infrastructure can be sold by insisting that they will make money when demand for goods increases. Failure to do this will mean further stagnation, or a redux of the 1930s. Or probably a much more violent version of the 1930s.
Hence, Hillary Rodham Clinton might as well act like FDR from the start of her administration, signaling a new day for the Democrats and the country as a whole.
1062
An economist, responsible for rescuing one of our State Capitals from bankruptcy in the mid-70s when Ford retreated to Washington, was bringing to the attention of the G.O.P. and the American Public the pressing need for National Infrastructure in the mid 90s.
When asked in 2008 the estimate of rebuilding our Country, he gave a rough figure of near $4 Trillion for Washington to consider. Can we afford this and begin somewhere on one of these projects? The daily commuters on the track from Grand Central Station and back could benefit from the reconstruction of our Railroad System. It might prevent some accidents and avoid some hazards that could have been avoided.
When asked in 2008 the estimate of rebuilding our Country, he gave a rough figure of near $4 Trillion for Washington to consider. Can we afford this and begin somewhere on one of these projects? The daily commuters on the track from Grand Central Station and back could benefit from the reconstruction of our Railroad System. It might prevent some accidents and avoid some hazards that could have been avoided.
3
Yes, yes, yes! (And plan for increasing automation/necessary major changes in patterns of employment.)
2
Suggesting HRC act like FDR is easier said than done. With the certainty of a republican house, every attempt to invest in infrastructure and incrementally increase taxes for the rich will be fought, stalled, and stymied
6
Dr. K ignores the Clinton Derangemetn Syndrome that affects
a lot of our commentocracy
Supply side will mever work and the GOP has learned there is
no penalty for being wrong.
The GOP does not give a fig about fairness.
paying for things? how quaint.
a lot of our commentocracy
Supply side will mever work and the GOP has learned there is
no penalty for being wrong.
The GOP does not give a fig about fairness.
paying for things? how quaint.
29
Economics has been called the science, and it is easy to understand why.
Economics does not stand alone like the physical sciences, some one comes up with a hypothesis, gathers a few facts, or what looks like facts, and forms a theory. This sort of works for micro economics, but no one has been able to generate a grand unified theory that works in every case.
Economics is dependent on human action, there is no way around it, and human action is dynamic, not static. We do have some history to show us what did work at least once, and what did not. However there are those who think they know the answers to such questions like how to make the economy grow. The conservative mantra has been for centuries, cut taxes, everyone hate taxes, but that only work if the tax rate exceeds the historical level of stable societies.
Public works add to the money supply, it gets spread around, but there is a limit to how much can be done. I think there is a correlation between the population increase or decrease, with the rate of growth of the economy.
What can be done, is improve working conditions, improve retirement income, improve health. Happy people make good customers, healthy people keep costs low, happy workers produce more. We know that to be true.
Just be patient,
Economics does not stand alone like the physical sciences, some one comes up with a hypothesis, gathers a few facts, or what looks like facts, and forms a theory. This sort of works for micro economics, but no one has been able to generate a grand unified theory that works in every case.
Economics is dependent on human action, there is no way around it, and human action is dynamic, not static. We do have some history to show us what did work at least once, and what did not. However there are those who think they know the answers to such questions like how to make the economy grow. The conservative mantra has been for centuries, cut taxes, everyone hate taxes, but that only work if the tax rate exceeds the historical level of stable societies.
Public works add to the money supply, it gets spread around, but there is a limit to how much can be done. I think there is a correlation between the population increase or decrease, with the rate of growth of the economy.
What can be done, is improve working conditions, improve retirement income, improve health. Happy people make good customers, healthy people keep costs low, happy workers produce more. We know that to be true.
Just be patient,
260
David, I think you omitted the word "dismal."
Also if you look at the economic theory I have been trying to sell here, MMT, you will see that not only is it easy to understand, but it is consistent with US economic history, e.g. it explains why we have had a depression after every period of longer than 3 years in which we paid down the debt (had no deficits). It also explains why we had prosperity in 1946 - 1973 in spite of increasing the debt by 75%
Also if you look at the economic theory I have been trying to sell here, MMT, you will see that not only is it easy to understand, but it is consistent with US economic history, e.g. it explains why we have had a depression after every period of longer than 3 years in which we paid down the debt (had no deficits). It also explains why we had prosperity in 1946 - 1973 in spite of increasing the debt by 75%
4
“Public works add to the money supply…”
Not really. Spending on public works does not in and of itself increase the money supply because the money eventually (within a year) either returns to the federal, state and local governments as taxes, or is saved, or leaks out of the economy as it is used to import goods and services.
The only entity that can increase (or decrease) the money supply is the Federal Reserve Board (the Fed). It does so by buying or selling US Treasury bonds (open market operations). It will increase the money supply if it thinks interest rates are becoming excessively high. It will decrease it if it thinks there is a risk of inflation rising over 3% per year.
Economics may be called “the dismal science.” But it is after all a science, and as such, has to be studied. It is not “common sense” or “gut feel.” Many of its findings are counterintuitive. Common sense tells us the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, neither of which is true.
“…improve working conditions, improve retirement income, improve health. Happy people make good customers, healthy people keep costs low, happy workers produce more.”
Amen.
Not really. Spending on public works does not in and of itself increase the money supply because the money eventually (within a year) either returns to the federal, state and local governments as taxes, or is saved, or leaks out of the economy as it is used to import goods and services.
The only entity that can increase (or decrease) the money supply is the Federal Reserve Board (the Fed). It does so by buying or selling US Treasury bonds (open market operations). It will increase the money supply if it thinks interest rates are becoming excessively high. It will decrease it if it thinks there is a risk of inflation rising over 3% per year.
Economics may be called “the dismal science.” But it is after all a science, and as such, has to be studied. It is not “common sense” or “gut feel.” Many of its findings are counterintuitive. Common sense tells us the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, neither of which is true.
“…improve working conditions, improve retirement income, improve health. Happy people make good customers, healthy people keep costs low, happy workers produce more.”
Amen.
2
You say, "Economics has been called the science." You left out "dismal".
Economics is certainly dismal, but I would say not a science at all. Data can be collected about the comings and goings of money, and those data can be studied, but that doesn't make economics a science, says someone with a degree in Physics.
Economics is certainly dismal, but I would say not a science at all. Data can be collected about the comings and goings of money, and those data can be studied, but that doesn't make economics a science, says someone with a degree in Physics.
2
I think she will be doing plenty based on her website. Typically, candidates do not put things in writing that they do not think they can get done, since the media keeps a close tally on campaign promises kept and broken as their presidential terms unfold. So, what is in writing should be the minimum of her objectives.
So, if her proposals do not seem aggressive enough, this is likely the main reason. Besides, if a democratic candidate says, "X" then the GOP will put all their efforts into an anti-X basket and build wild X conspiracies, so understating is underappreciated in this political climate. Remember how Obama said he would change the political climate? Well, that was one of his many X-es. The GOP was not going to let that happen. Quite the opposite with all the obstruction.
Also, for a guy who is just a little concerned about macro-murkiness, this caution should come as a little bit of a relief. Anyway, being at near full employment (no matter how you slice the particpation rate) will mean that most of her ideas such as infrastructure spending and reducing out of pocket costs for families and students, will put a great deal of upward pressure on wages and demand and this will lead to increased GDP growth (and it is also nice to not feel like the public will be needed to do so much of the heavy lifting to push back against all the GOP fear mongering against sweeping liberal promises) - so long as we get out there and vote enough dems into office - all is good.
So, if her proposals do not seem aggressive enough, this is likely the main reason. Besides, if a democratic candidate says, "X" then the GOP will put all their efforts into an anti-X basket and build wild X conspiracies, so understating is underappreciated in this political climate. Remember how Obama said he would change the political climate? Well, that was one of his many X-es. The GOP was not going to let that happen. Quite the opposite with all the obstruction.
Also, for a guy who is just a little concerned about macro-murkiness, this caution should come as a little bit of a relief. Anyway, being at near full employment (no matter how you slice the particpation rate) will mean that most of her ideas such as infrastructure spending and reducing out of pocket costs for families and students, will put a great deal of upward pressure on wages and demand and this will lead to increased GDP growth (and it is also nice to not feel like the public will be needed to do so much of the heavy lifting to push back against all the GOP fear mongering against sweeping liberal promises) - so long as we get out there and vote enough dems into office - all is good.
66
Peg, I usually agree with you, but I am not so sure this time. I think most of Obama's failures are due to his predilection to start negotiations from the middle. He might have proposed a health care systems like the UK (socialized medicine) so we could compromise on a system like Canada's (Medicare for All).
4
It’s entertaining that Paul regards “incremental but fairly large increases in high-income tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety net” as “center-left”. It’s only center-left to Jeremy Corbyn. For America, it’s socialist and collectivist in the extreme.
If elected, we don’t know how she’d govern, as Mrs. Clinton’s embrace of the Sanders/Warren agendas is only a couple of months old. Before that her policies WERE center-left, and I admitted here how relieved I was that either way we’d be governed by a (very) moderate Republican president.
I’m not so sure anymore.
If she wins on this platform, even when it wouldn’t be the platform that won but the inability of Trump to stay on message and refrain from antagonizing so many, she may very well feel obligated in her triangulations to live the commitments in order to satisfy the coalition that put her in the Oval Office.
Right now, it doesn’t seem possible that Trump can transform himself into someone who can deliver a consistent message with even a minimum of gravitas. Pulling 45% of the country behind him may impress his ego but it means he hands Hillary a landslide victory. If he can’t pull off a miracle by Labor Day (or unless another email debacle drops), the smart bet will be that we face four years of a worsening economy, a failed Clinton presidency and entrenched frozen politics. And Donald Trump will be called a loser for all time; and not just in the NY Times.
If elected, we don’t know how she’d govern, as Mrs. Clinton’s embrace of the Sanders/Warren agendas is only a couple of months old. Before that her policies WERE center-left, and I admitted here how relieved I was that either way we’d be governed by a (very) moderate Republican president.
I’m not so sure anymore.
If she wins on this platform, even when it wouldn’t be the platform that won but the inability of Trump to stay on message and refrain from antagonizing so many, she may very well feel obligated in her triangulations to live the commitments in order to satisfy the coalition that put her in the Oval Office.
Right now, it doesn’t seem possible that Trump can transform himself into someone who can deliver a consistent message with even a minimum of gravitas. Pulling 45% of the country behind him may impress his ego but it means he hands Hillary a landslide victory. If he can’t pull off a miracle by Labor Day (or unless another email debacle drops), the smart bet will be that we face four years of a worsening economy, a failed Clinton presidency and entrenched frozen politics. And Donald Trump will be called a loser for all time; and not just in the NY Times.
5
What, specifically, is wrong with Hillary's "left wing" policies?
47
@ Richard Luettgen - Richard, your other self is showing this morning. Was FDR socialist and collectivist in the extreme? Physical, to say nothing of social, America is falling apart. And energy America is stuck in the 19th century.
Here in what I am sure you see as socialist collectivist Sweden virtually all of the roads in my city have been or are being resurfaced unless they were alread in almost perfect shape. There is major work going on laying new pipelines for the district heating/fjärrvärme system that heats this city as do similar systems heat the others.
That is not socialist-collectivist but simply a demonstration of an understanding that constant maintenance is more cost effective than let-it-fall apart and then try to fix it approaches.
Tell me about your part of New Jersey including the renwable energy system being developed there.
Larry
Gmail at my otherwise dormant blog Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Here in what I am sure you see as socialist collectivist Sweden virtually all of the roads in my city have been or are being resurfaced unless they were alread in almost perfect shape. There is major work going on laying new pipelines for the district heating/fjärrvärme system that heats this city as do similar systems heat the others.
That is not socialist-collectivist but simply a demonstration of an understanding that constant maintenance is more cost effective than let-it-fall apart and then try to fix it approaches.
Tell me about your part of New Jersey including the renwable energy system being developed there.
Larry
Gmail at my otherwise dormant blog Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
482
Clinton tax policy remains far to the right of Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
50
I still go for Bernie's decision
Despite the Krugmanian derision,
I will not pillory
But vote for Hillary
A sane but reluctant decision.
Despite the Krugmanian derision,
I will not pillory
But vote for Hillary
A sane but reluctant decision.
267
Maybe it's the economy, stupid - but the dealing with the real economy is for those who are stupid. Even Bernie would have had to come back to earth and work through his most radical proposals. Krugman is right to point out the need for a rational and quieter discussion of problems along with doable solutions. Bernie should keep pushing us (and Hillary) in the right direction.
23
Joel wrote "Even Bernie would have had to come back to earth and work through his most radical proposals."
Radical? Bernie is an FDR Democrat. Corporatist Democrats don't have a problem spending almost as much as all other countries combined on the military, yet when it comes to health care, education, and infrastructure we're told we can't afford it. Bernie has the right priorities, not the corporatists.
Radical? Bernie is an FDR Democrat. Corporatist Democrats don't have a problem spending almost as much as all other countries combined on the military, yet when it comes to health care, education, and infrastructure we're told we can't afford it. Bernie has the right priorities, not the corporatists.
7
Actually, it's the Supreme Court stupid.
7
“So it’s actually quite brave to say: 'Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.' ”
and
"I’d argue, in particular, for ... more borrowing to pay for it."
Is it really brave - brave as in courageous - to propose higher taxes on 1% (or even 10%) of the population and also further borrowing? The higher taxes part just seems good policy. To call it brave is to make it out to be more out-of-the-ordinary than it is or should be.
and
"I’d argue, in particular, for ... more borrowing to pay for it."
Is it really brave - brave as in courageous - to propose higher taxes on 1% (or even 10%) of the population and also further borrowing? The higher taxes part just seems good policy. To call it brave is to make it out to be more out-of-the-ordinary than it is or should be.
9
In the insane political climate since Reagan and the California funding debacle, saying one will raise taxes is brave.
15
"...Mrs. Clinton’s economic vision, which she summarized last week. It’s very much a center-left vision..."
To call it a summary is too kind. To call it center-left is a fiction. In the 90's, the Clintons were also talking about strengthening unions. We know that didn't happen. Clinton talked about jobs and an infrastructure bill. What of the good paying jobs the former middle class wants back? Surely they're not expected to fix roads and bridges? At this point in the election cycle, voters should have a cleanly defined idea of where both candidates stand on the issues. The fact is that if Trump's ineptitude and craftily-worded nonsense befits his fool's candidacy, the kind of slickness we still get from Clinton is the stuff that makes voters more - not less -anxious about a candidate they didn't trust to begin with.
It also doesn't help that Clinton is now bolstered by what seems to be an incredible amount of support from the elites who have always opposed her. But upon closer inspection, Bloomberg's support is limited to voting for Clinton against Trump and not helping her down-ticket. Counting on the buffoonery of Trump to flip both houses is risky. Congressional Republicans are busy trying to salvage their campaigns to keep their seats.
Clinton still needs her progressive voters and can't afford to lose or replace them with Republicans. So, she needs to say much more to them and gloat less about new Republican supporters.
---
9 lies: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2nR
To call it a summary is too kind. To call it center-left is a fiction. In the 90's, the Clintons were also talking about strengthening unions. We know that didn't happen. Clinton talked about jobs and an infrastructure bill. What of the good paying jobs the former middle class wants back? Surely they're not expected to fix roads and bridges? At this point in the election cycle, voters should have a cleanly defined idea of where both candidates stand on the issues. The fact is that if Trump's ineptitude and craftily-worded nonsense befits his fool's candidacy, the kind of slickness we still get from Clinton is the stuff that makes voters more - not less -anxious about a candidate they didn't trust to begin with.
It also doesn't help that Clinton is now bolstered by what seems to be an incredible amount of support from the elites who have always opposed her. But upon closer inspection, Bloomberg's support is limited to voting for Clinton against Trump and not helping her down-ticket. Counting on the buffoonery of Trump to flip both houses is risky. Congressional Republicans are busy trying to salvage their campaigns to keep their seats.
Clinton still needs her progressive voters and can't afford to lose or replace them with Republicans. So, she needs to say much more to them and gloat less about new Republican supporters.
---
9 lies: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2nR
133
"As the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center put it, she’s “a politician who would pay for what she promises.”" doesn't jibe with "It’s very much a center-left vision:"
Pay for what you promise is a right of center view. If we are to hope for a resumption of Keynesian policies, that kind of framing discourages left of center voters and right wing voters alike. Both want change and both want big changes to the way we keep jobs in our nation and trade with our partners. That change is key to their sense of security and their children's. Clinton continuing to say little about those things will keep a Trump candidacy alive, in spite of all the dangers it poses.
Pay for what you promise is a right of center view. If we are to hope for a resumption of Keynesian policies, that kind of framing discourages left of center voters and right wing voters alike. Both want change and both want big changes to the way we keep jobs in our nation and trade with our partners. That change is key to their sense of security and their children's. Clinton continuing to say little about those things will keep a Trump candidacy alive, in spite of all the dangers it poses.
203
Rima, it still does not seem like you have ever been to Clinton's website.
Also, you write, "Counting on the buffoonery of Trump to flip both houses is risky."
It seems like you think all the flipping will be done by attracting liberals, when districts with mostly liberals already have representatives in congress.
Who do you think is voting in all those gerrymandered districts that need flipping? Mostly conservatives of varying degrees mixed with blue dogs and the moderate ones can be persuaded.to Clinton.
You have written so much vitriol about the Clintons and devoted so much time to it, I almost wonder if your real name is Dowd or someone working on behalf of the GOP at the very least.
Also, you write, "Counting on the buffoonery of Trump to flip both houses is risky."
It seems like you think all the flipping will be done by attracting liberals, when districts with mostly liberals already have representatives in congress.
Who do you think is voting in all those gerrymandered districts that need flipping? Mostly conservatives of varying degrees mixed with blue dogs and the moderate ones can be persuaded.to Clinton.
You have written so much vitriol about the Clintons and devoted so much time to it, I almost wonder if your real name is Dowd or someone working on behalf of the GOP at the very least.
660
"Surely they're not expected to fix roads and bridges?"
Seriously? Isn't a well-paying union job better than no job at all? And let's not forget that large-scale infrastructure projects employ people across the spectrum - they require not just manual labor, but also engineers, technicians, analysts, projects managers...
I grow weary of disaffected Sanders supporters working out their petulance on Clinton. There's absolutely no percentage in it. Because at this point, your choices are chicken or poison; no amount of grousing is going to change that.
You want Clinton to "say much more" to progressive voters. I believe she said plenty in offering substantial concessions in the party platform. And since progressives don't constitute a solid majority of voters, realistically, she can only go so far.
Let's all follow Dr. Krugman's example and recite the Serenity Prayer. It's time to move on.
Seriously? Isn't a well-paying union job better than no job at all? And let's not forget that large-scale infrastructure projects employ people across the spectrum - they require not just manual labor, but also engineers, technicians, analysts, projects managers...
I grow weary of disaffected Sanders supporters working out their petulance on Clinton. There's absolutely no percentage in it. Because at this point, your choices are chicken or poison; no amount of grousing is going to change that.
You want Clinton to "say much more" to progressive voters. I believe she said plenty in offering substantial concessions in the party platform. And since progressives don't constitute a solid majority of voters, realistically, she can only go so far.
Let's all follow Dr. Krugman's example and recite the Serenity Prayer. It's time to move on.
671
The current economy is based on making a few people rich on the backs of the rest and is greed driven - hardly a recipe for a great country.