Paul Krugman: Scholar or political hack?

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I've never seen nor heard it discussed that unemployment is 60% in this narrative. ...

No, sorry, I was trying to point out it would take unemployment as high as 60% for the stereotypes the right has about a welfare state to be true.

...I can't resist, how do you determine what fair share is?

While 'fair share' can vary over time, currently we need more money for community needs and the poor have no more to give while the rich have an unprecedented excess and can easily afford to contribute more. A large part of the shortfall was the result of tax cuts for the rich, which Bush thought was appropriate because there was a surplus. But shortly after acting under surplus circumstances Bush took the country to war. Bush failed to adjust course when the drastic change in circumstances warranted it, (most likely because of a combination of factors: his Daddy had that "read my lips" problem, and Bush was convinced the war would be short and/or the oil revenues would pay for it).

...I don't think that the top 1% could do it, but maybe the top 5% could. ...

Of course I have to run the same scenario for the top 50% excluding the help of the top 5%. I choose the top 50% because the bottom 50% don't pay federal income taxes so it is logical that they don't have any additional disposable income. Each one of those people would have to spend $8,333. That's one quarter of what they make per year.

My conclusion, it's gonna take the help of everybody to increase our consumption by 5% next year.

There are a number of ways to increase revenue to counter the increasing debt, but currently in order to end the recession, you want to increase taxes only on people for whom the increase would not cut into their current spending. For people with huge excesses beyond what they are currently spending, they should pay more taxes. For people at the lower incomes, especially those with excessive debt, you don't want to tax them more because it would defeat the purpose of spending to stimulate the economy. The middle class and lower are already spending the money. The rich are sitting on it.

... Do you agree that if the rich had the ability to increase their wealth they would do so? The reason the wealthy are not spending their money is because demand is low. Again, this appears to be a chicken or egg riddle to me.

The problem is not people being rich. The problem is a recession.

IMO, the economics that preceded the recession resulted in too much wealth concentrated at the top. That is a separate issue from what to do now.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Keynesian Economics aren't unconstitutional, if that's what you are suggesting.

Keynesian Economics is a theory, which cannot be unconstitutional, but the implementation of policies that are derived from such theory can be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Keynesian Economics is a theory, which cannot be unconstitutional, but the implementation of policies that are derived from such theory can be.

Can be but are not.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Can be but are not.

I'm sure someone can cough up a Keynesian policy that would be unconstitutional, so that's not really a categorical fact.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sure someone can cough up a Keynesian policy that would be unconstitutional, so that's not really a categorical fact.

So are we talking exceptions or theory based concepts? I was referring to the latter.

 

[Tippit]

Can be but are not.

The implementation of Keynsian economics as it pertains to currency debasement most certainly IS unconstitutional. The imposition of this regressive tax on the poor requires a fiat monetary system that is the antithesis of what is defined as money in the Constitution - gold and silver.

 

[daenku32]

The implementation of Keynsian economics as it pertains to currency debasement most certainly IS unconstitutional. The imposition of this regressive tax on the poor requires a fiat monetary system that is the antithesis of what is defined as money in the Constitution - gold and silver.

So inflation targeting is unconstitutional? That'd be a heck of a SCOTUS case.

 

[Kestrel]

The implementation of Keynsian economics as it pertains to currency debasement most certainly IS unconstitutional. The imposition of this regressive tax on the poor requires a fiat monetary system that is the antithesis of what is defined as money in the Constitution - gold and silver.

Way back in 1884, the Supreme Court ruled in Julliard vs Greenman (110 US 421):

By the constitution of the United States, the several states are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from this to deny to congress either of these powers.

 

[Tippit]

Way back in 1884, the Supreme Court ruled in Julliard vs Greenman (110 US 421):

Which proved to be a disastrous "interpretation" of the US Constitution. Only a fool would conclude that it is within the spirit of the document that the power of imposing an arbitrary, unlimited, and regressive tax upon the population should be prohibited to the states, but granted to the Federal Government.

It's worth nothing that the Constitution is flawed in the sense that it didn't specifically prohibit the issuance of fiat money other than by the states, but then the idea that the Federal Government is prohibited from doing anything not expressly *authorized* by the Constitution, which is what was intended, has long been thrown out the window.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I too wish it was up to the layman to decide what the Constitution really meant. Why rely on the courts? Much more fun to have every man and his dog interpret it for themselves and just run with it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's worth nothing that the Constitution is flawed

Yes, it is flawed in many ways.

but then the idea that the Federal Government is prohibited from doing anything not expressly *authorized* by the Constitution, which is what was intended,

If that was intended, then it's a pretty big flaw. Possibly a fatal flaw. If only there was some way to fix it...

has long been thrown out the window.

Phew! Luckily it seems that there was a solution...

 

[Aepervius]

ETA Nevermind answered upthread