Great recession versus depression krugman Videos

it's not these things that bleed us dry--it's paying for wars, especially the last two.  However, the government is not broke, that is a lie told to make us think we cannot afford health care, education, and welfare programs.

I don't need to explain. There is already enough military expending for invading Iraq and afeghanista, and somehow that waste did not prevent crashes and depressions on America. War = bad. Waste = bad.

+archie aion explain...

not on this planet.

Because it is true.

+anarki777 The main problem is like Paul said, private debt is too high. We need to wait for private debt to be paid off but, the gov doesn't want the economy to collapse like we saw in the 30's when debt as deleveraged, they will continue t intervene.. Paul suggest we get into more debt to stimulate but as private debt goes down gov debt goes up and in return we get no where. There's no way to get out of this easy as the baby boomers are saving for retirement.

+anarki777 Sorry, I only saw this today."You would have to start by cutting the most pointless and wasteful jobs in the public sector."Like what?"Many of those people will go on to find more economically beneficial jobs in a short while and will once again pay income tax."What jobs? Created by who and how?

You might want to look at Japan. They're at 200% of GDP with their debt and people still buy their bonds at very low interest rates. America's economy is much bigger and stronger than Japan's, so I don't think we don't have anything to worry about at this point.

+boralapah Yes, I am aware of that, which is why I mentioned it briefly in the comment you responded to. You would have to start by cutting the most pointless and wasteful jobs in the public sector. Things like cutting welfare and other painful choices would have to be made. Income tax will go down, but not by as much as the amount we pay people to do pointless jobs in the public sector. Many of those people will go on to find more economically beneficial jobs in a short while and will once again pay income tax. The alternative is that we employ a bunch of guys to dig a hole in the ground fir no reason so they pay us back a percentage of that money in income tax.

"needs to cut fiscal spending and pay its debts." Ok, but how? You do know that when you cut the fiscal spending you reduce the GDP, which in turn reduces the tax revenue, which in turn creates the need for more fiscal spending cuts, which cuts the GDP, which in turn reduces the tax revenue...How would you go about it? Where would you get the money to pay back the debts?

+Osca Carrillo That's basically the same

Indeed! Viva Mises and the Austrian School!Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, When is the Next AIG to Fall? | Marc Faber

+soapbxprod I'm working on my bachelors right now in mathematics and plan on getting a PhD in econ soon. I didn't realize papers made the argument. Hmm.I would like to let you know that it is petty to correct someone's grammar, and it is even more embarrassing when you demonstrate your lack of understanding on the topic at the same time. Please google "singular they," before you continue to correct me about it.You still haven't bothered to touch my argument whatsoever or given any information that is constructive. Do you have an argument?

+Christopher Bell II Google my name.Luke SacherAge 56. Ethical Culture Fieldston School and Reed College.Yes, where Oppenheimer and Steve Jobs went to school.

+Christopher Bell II "Any economist" is singular, not plural. "His" is the default gender in the English language for a possessive pronoun modifying a singular noun of neutral gender (economist). Not "hers" or "its". That's 7th grade grammar, kid.Produce your academic credentials. Where did you earn your degrees in Econ or Phil?

+soapbxprod You seem sexist: "His, not their." Do women economists not exist?I like your attacks though, no argument or substance. At least argue a point, don't waste time calling me a fraud without a reason to back it up. What about me demonstrates that I'm a fraud? Come with specifics.I'll take it everything else I have said you simply agree with then? 

+Christopher Bell II You are a fraud. You've never read one word of Locke, Smith, Hume, Ricardo, Bastiat, Menger, Mises, Keynes, Hayek, Samuelson, Rothbard, or Friedman.

+Christopher Bell II "EVERYTIME IN OUR HISTORY THAT A DEBT CEILING HAS NEEDED AN INCREASE"? and why was that increase "needed"? Hmmm?"Any economist worth their PhD and even on the department of treasury's website states that not raising our debt limit is an extremely irresponsible and damaging thing."His, not Their. Prove the "worth" of any economist's Ph. D.

+soapbxprod When you owe someone money in a household budget, your assets can be seized by the debtors through legal process. Any debt you have is viewed negatively upon you by other lenders and can prevent you from borrowing more.In a country debt is a symbol of trust by bond buyers. If you are growing while maintaining a debt, you can continue to accrue more debt because the value of the country increases (which in turn raise the value of the purchased bonds). No one will come in and seize your assets as a country (look at how long this Greece thing is going on), because there is no one governing body that makes absolute decisions on the matter. There is a reason why you can take classes in personal finance, corporate finance, and public finance: they are all different types of finance and budgeting that are subject to completely different aspects. People who are well versed in personal finance believe that it translates over to corporate and public, but it doesn't. Everything you have said prior works well for household economics, but in terms of a government the rules are different.The very fact that our politicians made this an ordeal by appealing to ignorance (i.e. that the government debt is similar in mechanism to personal debt) is very dishonest. EVERYTIME IN OUR HISTORY THAT A DEBT CEILING HAS NEEDED AN INCREASE WE HAVE DONE SO BECAUSE DEFAULTING IS ONLY AN ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT. Any economist worth their PhD and even on the department of treasury's website states that not raising our debt limit is an extremely irresponsible and damaging thing. This entire 'debt crisis' was a well crafted stall in congress by the Republican party, which was easy to do because evangelicals, a core part of their constituency, have a strong voting presence and aren't versed in public finance and are quite loud, to stall bills during Obama's presidency. It was a successful endeavor, but to save party face at the expense of the economic welfare of the entire country is absolutely insane.

+sojutimeHow so is it NOT, DUMMY?

The federal budget isn't the same as a household budget, dummy.

+FiverBeyondPlease don't think that I'm wishing woe on Japan- and I sincerely hope that Japan continues to attract investment and growth- but I beg to take the other side in the debate of unemployment/lack of demand versus deficit/debt. The numbers are truly staggering, all over the developed world, would you agree? I truly think that savings and investment is the only long term answer- and higher, market based interest rates as well, which would benefit older people with fixed incomes from bond investments. And the stock market bubble would gradually deflate as stocks would be sold and replaced with bonds in investors' portfolios.Take a look at this explanation if you wish-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-Tta3Pm28&list=PLALopHfWkFlGH1rLjmLTK3cGsXQ37gSHX&index=12

+soapbxprod"Wait about five more years for the real nightmare to start."Definitely willing to do this. In five more years, if Japan's economy stops growing, you can say you were right. In the meantime, people will keep investing in Japan, and right now it seems like unemployment and a lack of demand are bigger problems for the US than it's deficit or debt.

+FiverBeyondAll I am is a messenger of facts, not an economist or Professor of Econ, or a professional financier. I do not gain anything from forcing others to agree with my conclusions on those facts. Whether or not Japan is the #4 economy in the world in raw GDP, and 27th in GDP per capita, it cannot grow its economy enough to pay for its current debt and unfunded liabilities. It's simple arithmetic.Wait about five more years for the real nightmare to start...

"Produce your empirical data."Sure. For starters, just open up the wikipedia page on "Economy of Japan" and "List of Countries by GDP per Capita". Even with less than 150 million people, Japan is the fourth largest economy in the world. It's ranked 27th in GDP per capita, and even with your key piece of evidence (the downgrade to upper medium grade), it holds a better credit rating than most other countries.It simply contradicts the facts to claim that Japan is currently financially ruined. The worst that can be said is that its rate of growth has slowed.

+FiverBeyondProduce your empirical data.I do not "claim" that "Japan is currently in an economic downturn"- I assert it.And it has been for almost twenty years.It's now two suffered two "lost decades", back to back.Don't take my word for it. Take Niall Ferguson's word.And watch this.//www.dailymotion.com/video/x2bi6qi_china-s-economy-shows-more-weakness-and-more_newsWait another year or so when the bill comes due...

My age and location have no bearing on the conversation, but I'm eager to add that I didn't study Economics at college: I studied Computer Science.But nothing that you've said seems to be addressing my point: I AGREE with you that Japan's debt to GDP is enormously high, that's precisely why I wanted to show it as an example. While I agree that our own ratio shouldn't go as high, obviously Japan's outrageous ratio hasn't caused any kind of economic collapse: it's one of the strongest economies in the area, and has shown excellent growth when compared to most other countries.Just to clarify: do you claim that Japan is currently in an economic downturn? Do you claim that Japan is significantly worse off economically when compared to other countries with lower debt/GDP ratio?

+FiverBeyondI don't "feel" anything. Arithmetic is arithmetic. A balance sheet is a balance sheet.Japan's Debt to GDP ratio is 227 percent- the highest in the world.Double that of the US- at this moment.//www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/government-debt-to-gdp//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt//www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-24/japan-s-debt-trap//fortune.com/2014/10/31/japan-monetary-stimulus-debt/45 year old men are still living with their parents because they cannot afford to get married and raise families of their own.Where did you study Econ and Phil?I went to Ethical Culture Fieldston And Reed College.I'm 54. I entered the job market in 1982, at the peak of the US inflation crisis.How old are you? And where do you live?

+soapbxprodYou may feel like Japan is a basket case, but the point is that it's certainly not a basket case in the midst of widespread nationwide financial ruin. If (as you seem to suggest) Japan is either currently in or on the verge of total financial ruin... why do investors keep buying bonds from them? If Japan's high debt means that it can't grow economically, are you suggesting that the recent economic growth there of the past thirty years is... fake, or something?

+FiverBeyondJapan is a basket case. I know lots of people there- I worked with Japanese film crews in the 1980s and early 90s when they bought up the world and then had to sell off at 10 cents to the dollar. To put it simply, there will be one Japanese working to support 4 Japanese not working and living off the Welfare State- it's simple demographics.Don't take my word for it- read up about it://www.economist.com/topics/japan

Let's make your analogy fit the US more: imagine that you are in charge of the bank that prints money. Imagine that you will never retire. Imagine that your neighbor, Japan, has proven that he's perfectly able to get along with a much greater debt than you. Imagine that debt, instead of being controlled by a corporation who can seize your assets, is rather an indication of the confidence that foreign countries have in your growth.Macro-economics is not at all the same as home economics.

Totally! Watch Marc Faber make mincemeat of him! :)Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, When is the Next AIG to Fall? | Marc Faber

+Giovanni Vitellozzi Keynes was right in his response to the Depression.  Aggregate money supply had declined by nearly 30% due to bungling by the Fed.Today is quite a different problem.  We are not in a deflationary spiral, and Krugman can't claim we're in a liquidity trap until the Fed stops buying assets.  One reason banks aren't lending is that investors can't get a good return their savings, so they are buying short-term government securities at 0%, and inflating the value of stocks instead of investing in consumer products and housing (which increase autonomous spending).Also, the economy has been in a constant state of Keynesian stimulus since the 1950s, as government spending/gdp continues to grow.  Much of the wiggle-room we needed to borrow had already been borrowed during the boom years.One major problem with Keynesian stimulus today is that globalization dilutes the stimulus. Government spends money into the domestic market, but much of that money (in many cases the majority), goes overseas.  Keynes himself noted that his fiscal policy worked best in a closed system. For Keynesian stimulus to work today, it would require the coordinated efforts of at least the G8, and even better the G20 nations.  This is politically very challenging to accomplish.  For the US to try to stimulate by itself is like shooting BBs at an elephant.  Other problems with Krugman's economics are listed in another post I offered on this page.  The biggest problem with Keynesian stimulus is the long-run political consequences, rather than economic.  But economics is a  social science, so political outcomes count.Lastly, I encourage you to read Sir Keynes' last article for the Political Economy Club at Oxford in 1946, in which he expressed distress at the lengths to which his disciples were taking his teachings; highlighting that his policy should only be undertaken as a last resort, and was not a prudent tool to guide future fiscal policy.Thanks for your comment, I think you're right in a lot of cases. ;)

+mikedd56 Krugman knows Keynesian economics, which you don't seem to grasp. The debt as a fraction of gdp is not a problem at this time. WE are not in a crisis, and frankly all this chicken little conservative nonsense is doing harm to the nation.  We should invest in improving productiivity borrow money at low rates and get the country on a path to 5% growth.  It is interesting that all these know it alls attack Krugman but they have no theories pf their own to back up their reasoning. Keynes was right and Krugman is just there to point it out.

+HealthyMealthy Dont know much? How could you say that. His nobel prize came with well over a million bucks as part of the prize. Huge paydays to continue babbling his nonsense. No need to venture out in the real world. This guy literally thinks there is no problem with debt or inflation. His unchanging proposal is mass spending. Do you think this guy spends all of HIS money of nonsense. Anyone believe this millionaire is in debt.Economics is not a science. Just as surely as a responsible adult with a family & salary job does not use the laws of physics to approach his finances. Theres a lot of details to work out but he will never stray from the unchanging principle of spending less than you make & if you get a loan you make damn sure you can pay it back. Thats all there is to it.If economics was a science & Krugman had to put his theories thru the scientific method he would get to the testing phase, runs 100 experiments all proving him wrong so he just rejects the test results & simply concludes that his initial hypothesis is still correct. He really is a special kind of jackass. Its as if he thinks he can reason with reality. His theories are now correct b/c he had a little talk with reality who came around to his way of thinking, so thats how it is now.

lol debt hawks... your debt is nothing, nor the deficit. If the U.S. taxed properly then there would be no issue, rather than the tiny one that occupies so much of your economic discussion, but much worse, the political one as well.