A Final Note

Wow -- what an amazing discussion. What I take from all this is that while fast action is the first priority, we need to be thinking, hard, about what comes next. We want to do better than FDR at fighting an economy that wants to go into depression; but we also want to figure out why so much went right under Harry Truman, so that the WPA didn't have to be resurrected.
I think there's another book waiting to be written ...
Meanwhile, thanks to everyone who weighed in on this terrific discussion.

















Thanks, and keep up the great work Prof. Krugman! (I'm watching your talk right now from today's National Press Club meeting on cnn.com...)
PS - Thank you for your scathing piece today in today's NYTs. A masterpiece. We've been held up without a gun for too long. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&hp
December 19, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 20, 2011 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all this, did anyone ever mention that after winning a war on two fronts, the confidence resultant was sufficient to move forward? Or that the manufacturing destruction worldwide, leaving us with the only intact economy, might have something to do with postwar prosperity?
I understand that economists like the comfort of complex models, but simplicity is usually more relevant to reality.
December 19, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a layperson, I have some burning questions for any professional economist.
1. I keep reading about all the outsourcing, the globalization of the economy, the trade deficit. I read that a lot of the money that Americans think is going to American companies (such as the automakers and AIG) is in fact going to international companies, and a significant percent (at least 30%?) is "leaking" out of the country.
2. This seems like one significant difference between now and the 40s. What shooter242 mentioned, that WWII left America with a huge industrial advantage, and a tempered and disciplined population impatient for peace and plenty seems very important too.
3. Another big factor is that so much wealth (how much compared to the amount that moves through governments?) has been successfully privatized and moves selfishly around the globe. I don't see how the global economy can recover unless that wealth (and its owners) can be marshalled to work for the good of all.
So if we had a full deck of cards after WWII, we now have less than half a deck, and I'm afraid we're going to run out of cards before we win anything. Please somebody, tell me why I'm wrong.
December 19, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zann, I'm not a professional, but let me offer a couple of items for thought.
1. People here, including Krugman, are unrelentingly pessimistic because they are more interested in replacing current economic ideas with their own. That requires discrediting capitalism and free markets.
2. That negativity depresses people such as yourself, which in turn depresses economic activity. Not good. The truth though is that we are smart, resourceful, and exceptionally capable people. We will be fine.
3. Why? Because eventually know-it-alls like Krugman will realize they don't have the power to enforce their will on nations and will step out of the way to let the real generators of wealth step through.
4. Who would that be? Wealthy people. They are wealthy because they have the talent and resources to produce things. While that may be antithetical to the idea of egalitarianism, the truth is that building business which are self-sustaining, create jobs, and pay taxes, is a talent held by very few. When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?
5. Our current predicament is surely based on greed, but it is also the from the most heavily regulated businesses in the economy. Think about the idea that money makers did their job too well and the regulators didn't. The regulators failed not the money makers.
6. This vignette of Sumner Schlicter says it all. Have faith, save for the future, and exam what people tell you through filter of your own experience. You know a lot more about economics than you give yourself credit for.
December 21, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe they have the "talent" to set up Ponzi schemes and hedge funds, which produce nothing unless you count destruction as "production".
This simplistic notion that all wealthy people got wealthy through production was never true, but at least it was more true in an era dominated by industrial capitalism than the modern American era dominated by financial capitalism.
December 25, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yay, team! The depression will bring us together!
My final reflection is that we need to realize that the "problem" we face is one of abundance, not of scarcity. Economists only know how to think about scarcity. Capital lusts after "scarcity rents". When there's abundance, dead labor can't earn interest for no other reason than being "scarce" (when it isn't).
We face a choice between euthanasia of the rentier class and hard times. It requires a Copernican shift. Capital is NOT the center of the universe. But if we continue to PRETEND that it is, we'll get the hard times.
So put on your thinking caps, folks and CHANGE!
December 19, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for joining us here Professor Krugman. I followed the discussion and enjoyed it thoroughly. I didn't join in because it was above my level of expertise.
Not to be snarky but what, if anything, was agreed on about what can be done about the economic mess we're in? And what should be done to prevent it from happening again? Was there a consensus opinion?
December 19, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be above their level of expertise.
=D
December 19, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you the short answer I've gleaned from the views of legitimate economists (those not in the employ of the plutocracy):
Public policy should focus like a laser on two imperatives:
1. Ensure that everyone who wants a job can get one.
2. Maintain an income distribution similar to that which prevailed in the 1960s-1970s.
There is a lot to the ways and means, but these should be the ultimate economic objectives of a democratic socity.
December 19, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and health care insurance for all.
December 20, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Paul for joining in here. Contributing your knowledge and insight is good for everyone. I was happy to see your latest in the NYT clearly raising an eyebrow to similarities between Maddof and other potential banking or Wall Street miscreants. For the vast majority who have trouble balancing their checkbooks that perspective is common and not likely to change. Its good to keep in mind that more often than not things are exactly as they appear. Let's face it, banks or other finacial firms 'losing' trillions is at least peculiar if not altogether suspect.
Here is your next Mission Impossible. Restore the trust of Americans in their financial system and in economists. I hope you can figure out how to do this. I think if you don't, a lot more than this message will self-destruct.
December 20, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I've not seen as any acknowledgment by the mainstream economists is that we are entering a new world. This is a world where we have too many people and too few resources.
Capitalism was a system for an "empty" world, where there was always room for expansion. Land (in the case of the US), and abundant raw materials. So the capitalist model of borrowing to finance growth followed by paying back the investments with interest from the "profits".
These profits were obtained by not factoring in the hidden costs (externalities) of resource depletion and environmental damage.
This model will no longer work in the future. Global warming shows that even the huge atmosphere can't be regarded as an unlimited waste disposal site.
We need to come up with a new economic and social model which is based upon a steady-state economy. One where things can get better, but not bigger.
Instead what we see are discussions of how best to get the gravy train back on track as quickly as possible. If this is all that comes out of the present situation a valuable opportunity for long-range planning and innovation will have been wasted.
December 20, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to second rdf comments re steady state theory. I am no expert (despite Econ degrees), but it seems to me that we have entered a world where the "growth" as a precondition of a healthy economy is not sustainable (even if we could prevent the externalities). My limited research on this idea, working backwards from research on global environmental crisis, has not shed any light on any viable model or realistic discussion. Is a no growth model possible or are we doomed to grow out of the earth?
December 20, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe.
One reason "productivity" is so high is because of still-essentially free energy in the form of the diminishing supply of hydrocarbons underground (it's cheaper than water or lattes, even at $4 per gallon of gasoline)
If you take away that barrel of oil, suddenly human labor is what is needed to make things (again). Especially food.
December 25, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is interesting to me that this discussion (and I second Prof. Krugman's assessment that is excellent) has been conducted almost entirely within a "post-keynesian" framework, without any reference to the idealized neoclassical long run that ostensibly lies behind most orthodox macroeconomic policy analysis. Is demand-constrained growth the default starting point to reconstruct a practical macroeconomics?
December 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were you ever considered for a post on Obama's economic tearm... thought Obama is so open to having the 'best and the brightest'......
What grade does Obama deserve from the almost completed roll-out of his Administration (of his top tier depts). I say a C (a C+ if I were a more charitable person).
Nominating Hillary Clinton as SOS is counter-balanced (cancelled out) by Sec of Labor appt of Hilda Solis (finally, someone from California - a state which is on the brink of BANKRUPTCY itself): Los Angeles County ousted the Superintendent of LA Unified School district at the cost of $600,000+ in order to buy out his remaining contract, and then the taxpayer is slammed again with a contract between the new Superintendent and County Board, agreeing if the County dismisses the new superintendent in the same way, this new contract stipulates that the TAXPAYER would foot the buy-out bill for over a million dollars (around $1.3 mil). California is currently about $80 billion in the red....
Another notable appointment canceling each other out is Sec of Agriculture (former Iowa Gov tom Vilsack) and Obama’s Sec of Energy, Nobel Laureate Steven Chu of the Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab. One other prominent selection worth mentioning; the appointment of Timothy Geithner (NY Federal Pres) canceling out Larry Summer’s advisory role to Obama in the White House.
And this just in from Fox News (even if you hate Fox/Faux News). Congress voted themselves another PAY RAISE: According Fox, ‘Members of Congress make an average of $169,300 a year, with Congressional leaders making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cailf., makes $217,400, while the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate each make $188,100. The raise will increase the average salary to about $174,000, up 2.8 percent. Pelosi's and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's offices did not respond to FOXNews.com's requests for comment. Pay raises for public officials, whether at the federal, state or local level, usually spark outrage among taxpayer advocates. But the deepening financial crisis has led even a few lawmakers to object.’
Taxpayers too have a bailout safety net – it’s called Unemployment insurance for up to 9 months to go find yourself another job in a job market where there are NONE because Congress shipped most of them overseas (NAFTA, CAFTA, globalization, etc.) and approves of Bailouts to financial institutions without accountability, transparency, or even an ethical duty to look out after the average taxpaying American.
December 20, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
cha·ris·ma
A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
(from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/charisma)
Theories will be tried and tested. However, Charisma is what it took in the past and will take again.
FDR had it. Truman had it. Obama has it.
Charisma
December 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
teşekkürler bebegim.
türk pornoları
February 9, 2011 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 3, 2011 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v blog, windows xp iscsi boot
April 1, 2011 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to read this post, its an interesting one. I am always searching for quality posts and articles and this is what I found here, I hope you will be adding more in future. Thanks
Krup Law Group
April 10, 2011 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post is nicely written and it contains many good things for me. I am glad to find your impressive way of writing the post. Now it become easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thanks for sharing the post.
Dream Poems
April 16, 2011 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability cluster
April 29, 2011 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty article with me. I am appreciating it very much! Looking forward to another great article. Good luck to the author! all the best!
K2 4 Sale
May 4, 2011 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink