It's really disappointing to see you write this. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
You purport to care about the workers and the least of our brothers and yet would rather dogmatically have a balanced budget than do something to help them. Forgive me if I find this curious, not to mention anti-worker. You provide criticism without constructive, specific and pragmatic proposals, call me an objective ally of Sarkozy one day and the neo-liberals another, and yet I'm the one out of line pointing out that your interests and your inflation preferences align well as the polling data show?
Unlike calling me an objective ally of Sarko, that's not ad hom, that's calling a duck a duck. Nil aon leigheas ar an ngra ach posadh
I've noted that debt-fuelled binges in recent economic experience have not helped but made things worse. Why would the 70s or the 90s be less relevant than the 30s? I've argued that the core problem is a lack of income, not a lack of consumption, so helping consumption is not likely to help. I've said where that income can come from (wage increases and tax increases).
I have provided arguments, proposals and have reacted to your arguments, but if you refuse to acknowledge this, I fail to see the point of continuing this conversation. I have called you an "objecitve ally" of people you don't like in response to you doing the same, to point out how stupid these arguments are.
And "class" arguments coming from you are laughable, and I think we should avoid the issue altogether, because it's plainly ridiculous.
As to my preferences, well I would certainly benefit from more bailouts of the financial sector, I would certainly benefit from lower taxes, I would certainly deal with inflation a lot easier than people with no ability to negotiate their wages or invest money in inflation-protected assets, I would certainly benefit from lower gas taxes, etc... Your claims of personal interest there are laughable. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
That if there are no tax increases, you will do nothing.
Is this an accurate synopsis of your policy preferences? Because, over the past month or so, that's been the general theme. Nil aon leigheas ar an ngra ach posadh
And they are certainly not doing it on behalf of workers, whatever Jerome's lofty rhetoric to the contrary might suggest. A lofty rhetoric which, when examined against the backdrop of what workers themselves actually want, is at the same time an expression of his own class interests as it is (to be charitable) patronizing of the interests of those his view purports to protect.
redstar, as you read back through this discussion, you will likely find that there are quite esoteric disagreements on economic policy here. the comments regarding J do a disservice to the arguments you are trying to build. (to be charitable.) Fer chrissake, it's taken me a year to begin to digest some of Chris Cook's points. Could we tone down the rhetoric a bit... we're all trying to figure out how to react to the worst situation many of us will ever see. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
There are no governments (possible exception Spain on the periphery) who will do this until the next elections, Jerome knows this, therefore a pragmatic outcome of Jerome's principled opposition to "Anglo-Disease" is that we do nothing.
The likely result of this will be a severe, prolonged recession, if not the "d" word, in the Eurozone, with unemployment approaching 20% in many countries (and beyond in some, again thinking of Spain).
In my view and most moderately progressive economists (Krugman is often cited, as he was on this thread) this outcome, which as a logical result of Jerome's expressed policy preferences, this outcome, which will hurt workers now every bit as much as it did inthe 1930's, is potentially avoidable.
So actually, it's not esoteric, its a matter of one in five of your neighbors having a job at the end of 2010. Nil aon leigheas ar an ngra ach posadh
Since it looks that your preferences will be implemented, we'll be able to tell if I'm right or not, at least. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
What are we fighting about, exactly? I've criticized the stimulus plans for various reasons (too much use of debt, too many tax cuts, too much focus on the financial sector, too much precipitation and too little oversight/thinking over) and especially one (the debt bit), and you seem to disagree with my criticism of the stimuli, but you are now telling me that your ideas are in fact NOT implemented.
so let's be precise: given that, is it fair to say that your position is that on balance the Sarkozy/Merkel plans are better than doing nothing?
My position on that is that I'm not convinced this is the case, because of the debt angle, and because of too much focus on consumption and the financial sector.
My position on what a stimulus plan should look like is not that different from yours, I think: tax increases on the rich and on oil, emergency spending on the poorest, investment in smart energy and transport infrastructure, more spending on social needs, education and healthcare (and adding, less police harassment of immigrants and subversives and less fearmongering). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
So actually, it's not esoteric, its a matter of one in five of your neighbors having a job at the end of 2010.
That's rhetoric. What is esoteric is the complexity of the global economic condition. The fixes to prevent neighbors out of work demand strategic "out of the box" thinking. That means i will even have to use critical thinking of Krugman strategies, since he spends most of his time circulating in the world of the privileged Princeton elite.
You might as well attack me for spending more on travel, hotels and restaurants than most workers make in a year. There are no simple solutions to this crisis, other than views which haven't yet ever been tried. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
