Or is he just a good liar? There are big negative consequences irregardless of what path is taken, voluntarily or otherwise -- but certain choices allow others

Or is he just a good liar? There are big negative consequences irregardless of what path is taken, voluntarily or otherwise -- but certain choices allow others time to run for cover. Perhaps he believes what he is saying, but absolutely individuals with self-serving intentions benefit by repeating it: corporations, government, and ultra-wealthy. If the problem is a shortage of money, then the future is full of things that are built with borrowed money: roads, cars, bridges, power plants, factories, chain retail stores, restaurants, suburban sprawl, hotels, and high rise apartment/condo/office buildings. These guys imagine taking the last 50 years and plotting financed growth indefinitely in to the future. There is not much imagination in a nation plastered from one border to another with McDonalds and cookie cutter communities, but what is financed must have past blueprints to provide mathematical models behind the loan. If an economy must have continuously increasing prices to succeed, then Krugman is right. In tech, I think we would be fucked if we had to pay more money for less every year. That is what Krugman wants. (What I've observed tends to happen is prices of what is financed speed up vs what is not financed, like wages.) The thing that stuck out to me in 2007 was how low yields were for very unattractive debt. It has happened again. Watch out.