17 ms·

Another ex-IMF economist saying very similar things: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice (A great

Another ex-IMF economist saying very similar things: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice (A great read, by the way - even if you are already familiar with Simon Johnson's opinions by way of NPR's "Planet Money" podcast.)

trevelyan 18y ago
> Desmond Lachman, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute If there is a lesson to be learnt in the last 30 years of the American experience with economics, it is to keep the American Enterprise Institute and anyone associated with it as far away from policy-making as possible. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/02/debt-to-gdp-since-the-1920s.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/02/debt-to-gdp-since-the-... These people have zero credibility on anything debt-related until they repudiate their party's economic policies under Reagan and Bush II, both periods when it should not have been necessary for the US to radically increase its debt burden. The sudden concern of these people for US debt levels is entirely transparent, and entirely hypocritical. Lest we forget they were also a major proponent of social security reform (translation: Republican-championed efforts to invest Social Security funds directly in the stock market in ways that would generate private management fees). Good thing that didn't happen. As controversial as bailing out the banks are, it would be worse if the Democrats now had to bail out people who just blew everyone's retirement savings too.
- anamax 18y ago
  > These people have zero credibility on anything debt-related until they repudiate their party's economic policies under Reagan and Bush II, both periods when it should not have been necessary for the US to radically increase its debt burden. Reagan's spending was during a recession, which is when the standard theory says that govts should go into debt. I note that the folks on the left didn't want less spending at that time - they wanted far more. And, they were in a position to cut a lot of spending and refused. As to Bush II, the only opposition from the left to any of his spending increases (other than Iraq) was that it wasn't enough. Since debt is the difference between revenue and spending, anyone who advocates increased spending when revenues are not increasing even more is advocating increased debt. > Lest we forget they were also a major proponent of social security reform (translation: Republican-championed efforts to invest Social Security funds directly in the stock market in ways that would generate private management fees). Because Ghod knows that a govt worker will always do the right thing and for less.
- cwan 18y ago
  Are you referring to that massive unregulated and unfunded liability known as social security which is supposed to be even better than people saving for themselves? (Even if people's retirement assets were shaved by 50% - surely this is a better outcome than the likelihood that in 20 years time the US government is going to have to shave benefits by considerably more to pay for all the retired people?). That's the problem with these deficit projections now - things are going to get so much worse in the future with unfunded pension and social security liabilities that aren't reported. Government reporting is conveniently at a much lower standard than corporate/public reporting or else we'd really be getting worried.
hardik 18y ago
When I saw this story on front-page I actually thought it must be the Simon Johnson one; strange how similar the two stories are.
pfaux 18y ago
And a good Simon Johnson interview by Bill Moyers can be seen here : http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/profile.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/profile.html

trevelyan 18y ago

> Desmond Lachman, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute If there is a lesson to be learnt in the last 30 years of the American experience with economics, it is to keep the American Enterprise Institute and anyone associated with it as far away from policy-making as possible. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/02/debt-to-gdp-since-the-1920s.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/02/debt-to-gdp-since-the-... These people have zero credibility on anything debt-related until they repudiate their party's economic policies under Reagan and Bush II, both periods when it should not have been necessary for the US to radically increase its debt burden. The sudden concern of these people for US debt levels is entirely transparent, and entirely hypocritical. Lest we forget they were also a major proponent of social security reform (translation: Republican-championed efforts to invest Social Security funds directly in the stock market in ways that would generate private management fees). Good thing that didn't happen. As controversial as bailing out the banks are, it would be worse if the Democrats now had to bail out people who just blew everyone's retirement savings too.

anamax 18y ago
> These people have zero credibility on anything debt-related until they repudiate their party's economic policies under Reagan and Bush II, both periods when it should not have been necessary for the US to radically increase its debt burden. Reagan's spending was during a recession, which is when the standard theory says that govts should go into debt. I note that the folks on the left didn't want less spending at that time - they wanted far more. And, they were in a position to cut a lot of spending and refused. As to Bush II, the only opposition from the left to any of his spending increases (other than Iraq) was that it wasn't enough. Since debt is the difference between revenue and spending, anyone who advocates increased spending when revenues are not increasing even more is advocating increased debt. > Lest we forget they were also a major proponent of social security reform (translation: Republican-championed efforts to invest Social Security funds directly in the stock market in ways that would generate private management fees). Because Ghod knows that a govt worker will always do the right thing and for less.
cwan 18y ago
Are you referring to that massive unregulated and unfunded liability known as social security which is supposed to be even better than people saving for themselves? (Even if people's retirement assets were shaved by 50% - surely this is a better outcome than the likelihood that in 20 years time the US government is going to have to shave benefits by considerably more to pay for all the retired people?). That's the problem with these deficit projections now - things are going to get so much worse in the future with unfunded pension and social security liabilities that aren't reported. Government reporting is conveniently at a much lower standard than corporate/public reporting or else we'd really be getting worried.

hardik 18y ago

When I saw this story on front-page I actually thought it must be the Simon Johnson one; strange how similar the two stories are.

pfaux 18y ago

And a good Simon Johnson interview by Bill Moyers can be seen here : http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/profile.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/profile.html