Two on Stimulus
Today’s a day when the NYT’s two columnists really deserve to be read in tandem. First check out Paul Krugman on why thinks Barack Obama’s stimulus plan is too timid and doesn’t contain enough money—or enough of the right kinds of money—to soak up the excess capacity in the economy. And then take a look at David Brooks’ view that Obaam’s stimulus plan is frighteningly audacious.
What’s interesting is that Brooks doesn’t contradict Krugman’s analysis. Rather, Krugman’s looking at the big macro picture and the economic math. And Brooks is looking at the political picture in congress and inside the federal government’s logistical capacity to design and implement programs. His conclusion: “Maybe Obama can pull this off, but I have my worries.” The frightening possibility, of course, is that they both may be right—the stimulus we need may be more than the stimulus the political system is actually able to deliver.
27 Responses to “Two on Stimulus”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Yup. It almost seems like they tag-teamed it in order to make precisely that point. I don’t quite put it past them.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:37 am
What else is new? Not within living memory has our dysfunctional political system been able to deliver what the country needs.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Don’t smooth out their differences, especially by omitting a crucial respect in which Brooks toes party line. He claims that monetary policy is all that matters, something obviously wrong in the face of interest rate policy we’ve been seeing this past year or two and down through today, and something addressed specifically by Krugman last time. The fact is, the right is still trying to bring down the New Deal in order to resurrect their Neo-Hooverism.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I think Krugman was saying something different though. Brooks was saying that there’s not enough projects to ready to spend money on. Krugman refutes that:
Krugman’s worry, and mine, is that Obama is starting to look like an awfully timid politician. He has huge political capital right now, and he’s using it to put $100B into the stimulus plan for large businesses. I have yet to see a post of yours weighing in on the progressive criticisms about Obama’s stimulus plan. What do you think? I am starting to get really nervous, especially after I read this:
Seriously, please weigh in on this Matt.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Just starting? We must have watched different campaigns. All along his level of risk-aversion was off the charts. We’re getting exactly the President that the canadidate clearly signalled he’d be.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Just starting? We must have watched different campaigns. All along his level of risk-aversion was off the charts. We’re getting exactly the President that the canadidate clearly signalled he’d be.
I’m having deja vu, like it’s the Democratic primary again. The fine whine of the implacable left rears it’s ugly head again.
Solis’s hearing today should be interesting. Of course according to LaBonne, Solis never would have been appointed, b/c it would be risky. Much better to have had Edwards, who then would have promptly lost to McCain after his affair had been revealed.
Speaking of infidelities, I blame Blagojevich’s intransigence on the example Bill Clinton gave him, and I blame it on all of those moronic liberals who enabled Clinton, who Blago hopes will back him.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:58 am
On page 195, of The Price of Loyalty:
“We are looking at every [stimulus] instrument that’s ever been used and some that haven’t been… …O’Neill said. Among the options on the list, he said, are INCREASES IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, a “supplement” for people who pay no income taxes, and a reduction in the capital gains tax.” (my emphasis)
This was Bush’s first Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill on how to avoid recession, post the 9/11 attack.
Doubling the minimum wage would toss 350 billion the way of bottom 40 percentile earners — those now earning below the $500/wk.
Since Michael Harrington wrote “The Other America”, in 1968, 25% of our labor force has slipped below the minimum wage of that era — though average income doubled since. To me that is a much more significant emergency than looming 9% unemployment.
Minimum wagers wont get the whole raise in one jump. Will they get it in time to help ward off recession? Raise the incomes of those above 40 percentile by realistic unionization — which can only mean sector-wide labor contracts, mandated by law — and enough will get enough to help ward off recession.
As Ezra Kline recently pointed out, the card check may only produce unions that employers ignore, that employers refuse to bargain with. Under sector-wide: no contract, no legal work (at least it can be written that way). That should imply no scabs: the WHOLE AND ENTIRE point of unionizing is to force the employer to bargain ONLY with those employed now, not with everyone passing by on the street as before unionizing — not just to make bargaining with everybody who passes by on the street inconvenient.
If as much as 90% of our workforce is EXPECTING phased in raises (proportionately more the lower the current wages) over the next couple or three years, consumer confidence should be enhanced as much as anything can enhance it.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
As opposed to the everlasting brainless drone of the idiotss who think that anything slightly more liberal than Larry Summers is the “implacable left”?
January 9th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I worry about the surplus projects issue as well. I do not agree with the Keynesian thought experiment with digging holes and refilling them, because I think politics and political economy would interfere for the worse.
The key issue is almost not the economy. It’s the political economy–there are too many actors with power who would be diminished by an effective relief program because that would involve giving lots of people lower in the totempole greater power. They’ve worked very hard to ensure their own power at the expense of the masses, and I see no reason they are going to be rational now.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
As opposed to the everlasting brainless drone of the idiotss who think that anything slightly more liberal than Larry Summers is the “implacable left”?
So are you going to watch the Solis hearing? Or just suck your thumb and write bitchy e-mail to liberal blogs?
January 9th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Peter K, are you stupid or just dishonest? What Labor Secertary has ever had a major impact on any Administration’s economic policies? For the record, Solis is a great appointment. Unlike you, I’m smart and honest enough to give credit where it’s deserved, and black marks where THOSE are deserved.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Well you had written “All along his level of risk-aversion was off the charts” so I don’t exactly see you giving him credit where it’s deserved. All I see is you whining and bitching and jumping the gun on giving him “black” marks. He’s not even President yet.
A black dude in America running for President and winning? Yeah he’s risk-averse….
People can be critical and still not be a dishonest bitch about it.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Solis’s appointment, again, is a very good one and I applaud. It neither required the slightest bit of political courage, nor will it have more than a marginal impact on economic policy. That’s not bitching, it’s reality. Having Larry Summers as your major source of economic advice is the very definition of timid mainstream thinking. He’s part of the problem- indeed he had a major role inc creating it- not part of the solution. If you don’t choose to deal with reality that’s your problem, but you only expose your own idiocy by crapping on those who do.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
How many of the really influential ones aren’t also neoliberals, though? I mean, I’m hoping you’re right, but I haven’t really seen much that makes a dent in my skepticism.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The presence of spyware in your PC is no longer unusual nowadays.
laptops acer
March 1st, 2009 at 6:01 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 1st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:54 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:39 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra