4 ms·

Sadly, no. His argument (very plainly written in the article): there was no stimulus. The exact quote is, "There never was a big expansion of government spend

by earl 16y ago

Sadly, no. His argument (very plainly written in the article): there was no stimulus. The exact quote is, "There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need." He then provides details: net government employment has fallen. There haven't been any big infrastructure projects. State spending has fallen severely. Much of the stimulus spending was tax cuts, which probably don't affect employment much and we know well to not have the highest employment multipliers of all possible spending choices. He carefully differentiates between federal and government spending. So, to summarize: you misstate his argument. You misstate the supporting details. Either you can't read or you didn't understand anything he wrote. Who exactly isn't serious?

dnautics 16y ago
When I drive on the highways, I see all these ARRA signs all over the place. Driving cross country last summer from San Diego to DC I ran through no less than 8 cone zones. And again this summer from DC back to San Diego, I drove through about as many (and took a shorter route too). At the university of Maryland, they were building a "center for advanced physics research" using ARRA funds - even though there were two whole wings in the chemistry department that were empty, and we have reached 'peak undergrad' as the demographic trend has the echo-boomer undergraduates receding. Have you driven down 16th street? All of columbia heights is a disaster zone as federal stimulus funds attempt to redo 18th century urban planning. DC is building a trolley? (isn't there a reason why trolleys became obsolete in the mid-20th c?) to service southeast (of course the limousine liberals like krugman would never be caught in southeast DC)... Tearing up pennsylvania avenue in anacostia made delivering food to the homebound poor extremely difficult... on a saturday morning. Oh, I suppose I should disclose that my research job at the University of Maryland was underwritten with ARRA money? I suppose I'm a bit of a hypocrite, then, for taking the job when I was opposed to ARRA, but when I signed on to the job I really did think that the project was funded by the american cancer society, and I felt too obligated to the boss and too much in need of a salary to give it up when I found out the truth. The problem is that Krugman is counting 'stimulus' by number of jobs. Well, the fact of the matter is that the money was spent, leaving it to do its horrible inflationary magic. Throwing money at a solution can either create jobs, or pad the salary of people who already have money. Now, if I were an employer, and got a fat wad of cash to do X, would I really distribute the money to create jobs? Or circle the wagons and give myself and my current employees a pay hike in anticipation of the inflation that's coming down the pike?
- yequalsx 16y ago
  " leaving it to do its horrible inflationary magic"? The inflation rate is very low. "Now, if I were an employer, and got a fat wad of cash to do X, would I really distribute the money to create jobs?" That depends on the situation and climate you are in. You would spend the money to create jobs by expanding your business if it made sense to do so.
  - dnautics 16y ago
    " The inflation rate is very low." No doubt. Government spending and debt expansion has up till now largely been counterbalanced by private debt contraction. Also, as a poster below explained, it takes time for money expansion to manifest itself as increased prices. (hence my statement "coming down the pike"). Of course, private debt contraction will become increasingly harder as inflationary pressures raise the cost of living and make borrowing money (apparently) less painful over the short-and-medium runs.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  Driving cross country last summer from San Diego to DC I ran through no less than 8 cone zones. Stimulus or no stimulus, cone zones are a part of ongoing maintenance, emergency repair, or infrastructure expansion. We could outlaw all construction, but in 10 years or so, you won't have any roads left to drive on. (isn't there a reason why trolleys became obsolete in the mid-20th Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  At Cafe Hayek, they cite figures to show that Krugman is, indeed, blowing smoke to disguise that government really is spending a lot. See http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/hey-big-spender.html http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/hey-big-spender.html Not so. Inflation-adjusted spending at the federal level rose 29 percent between 2007 and 2009. The White House Office of Management & Budget estimates that this spending will rise another six percent in 2010 and three percent in 2011 -- meaning that, since 2007, Uncle Sam's spending is on course to rise by nearly 40 percent over the course of a mere four years. He goes on to quote a correspondent's email: Governments at all levels spent 4.1 trillion in 2006, 4.4 trillion in 2007 (when this recession began), 4.7 trillion in 2008, 5.0 trillion in 2009, and were on track to spend 5.2 trillion in 2010. This equates to 27% growth over a period in which we’ve had 8% inflation. He also links to a WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703358504575544351734226956.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870335850457554... ) which I'll quote briefly: Spending rolled in for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009's $3.52 trillion in the record books. But don't think this means Washington was relatively less spendthrift. CBO reports that the modest overall spending decline results from three one-time events. The costs of TARP declined by $262 billion from 2009 as banks repaid their bailout cash, payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were $51 billion lower (though still a $40 billion net loser for the taxpayer), and deposit insurance payments fell by $55 billion year over year. "Excluding those three programs, spending rose by about 9 percent in 2010, somewhat faster than in recent years," CBO says. Somewhat faster. You've got to laugh, or cry, when a 9% annual increase qualifies as only "somewhat faster" than normal. ...The 21.4% federal spending increase in two years ought to put to rest any debate about the nature of America's fiscal problem.
forgotAgain 16y ago
The contention was that there was never a "big expansion in government spending." There was a $600 billion increase in government spending for this one program. The article's reasoning that %40 of the spending does not count because it was tax cuts is nonsensical. The tax cuts were meant to stimulate the private sector. Why was the bill signed if %40 of it was being misappropriated? The article's reasoning that the payments to states and local governments should not be counted is also flawed. At the time the bill was passed people like Krugman were praising the payments to the states as the fastest way the money could be put into circulation and start "stimulating". If the money was mis-used by the state and local governments well whose fault is that but the federal government for lack of oversite. If he wants to state that the stimulus had little effect or was too small to be worthwhile fine. The statement that there was no big expansion of government spending is false. The fact that nothing was done with the money doesn't erase the fact that the money was spent and an unnamed future generation now has a $600 billion bill to pay. So sadly yes, the man is a shrill who long ago lost his objectivity and value as a commentator.

by earl 16y ago

dnautics 16y ago

When I drive on the highways, I see all these ARRA signs all over the place. Driving cross country last summer from San Diego to DC I ran through no less than 8 cone zones. And again this summer from DC back to San Diego, I drove through about as many (and took a shorter route too). At the university of Maryland, they were building a "center for advanced physics research" using ARRA funds - even though there were two whole wings in the chemistry department that were empty, and we have reached 'peak undergrad' as the demographic trend has the echo-boomer undergraduates receding. Have you driven down 16th street? All of columbia heights is a disaster zone as federal stimulus funds attempt to redo 18th century urban planning. DC is building a trolley? (isn't there a reason why trolleys became obsolete in the mid-20th c?) to service southeast (of course the limousine liberals like krugman would never be caught in southeast DC)... Tearing up pennsylvania avenue in anacostia made delivering food to the homebound poor extremely difficult... on a saturday morning. Oh, I suppose I should disclose that my research job at the University of Maryland was underwritten with ARRA money? I suppose I'm a bit of a hypocrite, then, for taking the job when I was opposed to ARRA, but when I signed on to the job I really did think that the project was funded by the american cancer society, and I felt too obligated to the boss and too much in need of a salary to give it up when I found out the truth. The problem is that Krugman is counting 'stimulus' by number of jobs. Well, the fact of the matter is that the money was spent, leaving it to do its horrible inflationary magic. Throwing money at a solution can either create jobs, or pad the salary of people who already have money. Now, if I were an employer, and got a fat wad of cash to do X, would I really distribute the money to create jobs? Or circle the wagons and give myself and my current employees a pay hike in anticipation of the inflation that's coming down the pike?

yequalsx 16y ago
" leaving it to do its horrible inflationary magic"? The inflation rate is very low. "Now, if I were an employer, and got a fat wad of cash to do X, would I really distribute the money to create jobs?" That depends on the situation and climate you are in. You would spend the money to create jobs by expanding your business if it made sense to do so.
- dnautics 16y ago
  " The inflation rate is very low." No doubt. Government spending and debt expansion has up till now largely been counterbalanced by private debt contraction. Also, as a poster below explained, it takes time for money expansion to manifest itself as increased prices. (hence my statement "coming down the pike"). Of course, private debt contraction will become increasingly harder as inflationary pressures raise the cost of living and make borrowing money (apparently) less painful over the short-and-medium runs.
Anechoic 16y ago
Driving cross country last summer from San Diego to DC I ran through no less than 8 cone zones. Stimulus or no stimulus, cone zones are a part of ongoing maintenance, emergency repair, or infrastructure expansion. We could outlaw all construction, but in 10 years or so, you won't have any roads left to drive on. (isn't there a reason why trolleys became obsolete in the mid-20th Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...
CWuestefeld 16y ago
At Cafe Hayek, they cite figures to show that Krugman is, indeed, blowing smoke to disguise that government really is spending a lot. See http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/hey-big-spender.html http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/hey-big-spender.html Not so. Inflation-adjusted spending at the federal level rose 29 percent between 2007 and 2009. The White House Office of Management & Budget estimates that this spending will rise another six percent in 2010 and three percent in 2011 -- meaning that, since 2007, Uncle Sam's spending is on course to rise by nearly 40 percent over the course of a mere four years. He goes on to quote a correspondent's email: Governments at all levels spent 4.1 trillion in 2006, 4.4 trillion in 2007 (when this recession began), 4.7 trillion in 2008, 5.0 trillion in 2009, and were on track to spend 5.2 trillion in 2010. This equates to 27% growth over a period in which we’ve had 8% inflation. He also links to a WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703358504575544351734226956.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870335850457554... ) which I'll quote briefly: Spending rolled in for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009's $3.52 trillion in the record books. But don't think this means Washington was relatively less spendthrift. CBO reports that the modest overall spending decline results from three one-time events. The costs of TARP declined by $262 billion from 2009 as banks repaid their bailout cash, payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were $51 billion lower (though still a $40 billion net loser for the taxpayer), and deposit insurance payments fell by $55 billion year over year. "Excluding those three programs, spending rose by about 9 percent in 2010, somewhat faster than in recent years," CBO says. Somewhat faster. You've got to laugh, or cry, when a 9% annual increase qualifies as only "somewhat faster" than normal. ...The 21.4% federal spending increase in two years ought to put to rest any debate about the nature of America's fiscal problem.

forgotAgain 16y ago

The contention was that there was never a "big expansion in government spending." There was a $600 billion increase in government spending for this one program. The article's reasoning that %40 of the spending does not count because it was tax cuts is nonsensical. The tax cuts were meant to stimulate the private sector. Why was the bill signed if %40 of it was being misappropriated? The article's reasoning that the payments to states and local governments should not be counted is also flawed. At the time the bill was passed people like Krugman were praising the payments to the states as the fastest way the money could be put into circulation and start "stimulating". If the money was mis-used by the state and local governments well whose fault is that but the federal government for lack of oversite. If he wants to state that the stimulus had little effect or was too small to be worthwhile fine. The statement that there was no big expansion of government spending is false. The fact that nothing was done with the money doesn't erase the fact that the money was spent and an unnamed future generation now has a $600 billion bill to pay. So sadly yes, the man is a shrill who long ago lost his objectivity and value as a commentator.