Many economists came under fire for failing to anticipate the recession. Now, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is taking aim at his fellow economists again — this time for not coming up with ways to help people like Cyndi Norton.
"We should have economists out there saying, 'Here's how we're going to return to full employment,' " he says, "not just, 'Oh, here's the mistakes we made getting here,' or 'Here are the things we need to be worried about.' "
Krugman prescribes "a huge dose of both fiscal and monetary stimulus" — bigger, even, than the $700 billion package Congress approved early last year. "We should be having lots of expansionary policy by the Federal Reserve, a lot more fiscal stimulus than the really massively underpowered measures than we've had so far," he says.
It doesn’t really matter so much what the stimulus money is spent on, he argues, as long as it gets spent. But he does recommend putting some of the money into infrastructure projects. "It's just crazy that we’re talking about possibly canceling a much-needed tunnel under the Hudson at a time when we have mass unemployment, and those construction workers, if not employed building that tunnel, will not be employed doing anything else.”
If the government doesn’t make more stimulus money available, Krugman says, "enormous harm" will come to American families. "You just need to think about how many people are unemployed now for long periods of time. Large numbers of people who have lost their jobs and will never get another if we don't change our policies." More at NPR
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Krugman Prescribes Big Stimulus
It perturbs me that Paul Krugman advocates for something that doesn't stand a chance. Though I'd like to see us give Krugman's prescription a whirl, he's so out of touch with what Americans want and what Congress is willing to do. Obama is not a dictator. Americans barely backed the first stimulus. The stimulus and the deficit helped birth the tea party. Congress mindlessly follows the noisiest narrative, as does the media. Krugman can prescribe all he wants, but it's useless and it's kind of mean to present a remedy that few people would support. What's the purpose? So that later Krugman can state how right he was? That's all any of these so-called experts care about.
Labels:
barack obama,
paul krugman