I lean heavily toward Krugman's opinions but don't know enough about Japan's current economic situation so I voted "don't know".
Consider using simpler and more direct sentences like
"I don't know anything on the topic , but I always agree with Krugman".
Better an honest sycophant.
If you're talking about the economic stimulus, the evidence absolutely supports the Keynesian solution Krugman promotes.
Ridiculous ! Show the evidence for this specific point you claim.
You cannot assess exactly what works and what doesn't based on an isolated case, and all of the larger studies show that government spending stimulus is less effective.
The private sector in the US is creeping out of the recession because of the stimulus
It's
creeping out in 5+ years rather than bouncing out in the typical <28 months, most likely can be attributed to policy. I favor the high tax, anti-business policies as the culprit, but that's speculation. In any case something about the recent policies have cause this recovery to be horribly slow.
while the bulk of the continued employment failure is in the public sector, police, teachers, little infrastructure investment.
Absolutely FALSE !!!
Civilian employment is ~4.6Mill lower than the 2007 peak.
Total public employment is off by about 660k in that same period.
Unemployment is 5.6M higher that 2007.
Yes, public employment has taken a bigger percentage hit in employment, but percentages are NOT a rational way to assess the "bulk of the continued employment failure". Otherwise "mobile home installers" with a 35% unemployment rate are the "bulk of the continued employment failure". It's not a percentages game.
A lot of the burden of public budget cuts is falling on the states because federal money isn't flowing like it should.
Define
"federal money isn't flowing like it should" without reference to normative standards or personal opinion. It's a nonsense conception.
It really means "other peoples money flows like you want".
If the public sector economy was stimulated that creeping rise in the private sector would be faster.
Yes, if you build a road, then the private sector contractors and the follow-on benefit, but it's been demonstrated quite convincingly that reducing taxes by the same amount and allowing the private sector to spend or invest results in higher and more sustained gains.
AFAIK the public sector employment is still dropping and in all likelihood that will continue as the general trend. In order to maintain a constant Federal government spending, and allow for the non-discretionary spending to grow by the expected ~25% in the next ~8 years, the discretionary branches will have to shrink by ~40% of current. Of course there is far less government employment in non-discretionary (social security, medicare, medicaid, federal pensions) than in discretionary (military, DOJ, State, Agriculture ...). Many states & muni's have a similar dilemma.
And there's no evidence despite the constant drone of the right wing that the deficit is an urgent immediate crushing problem.
Yes. What could possible go wrong when debt service, at historically low rates, is already using up almost 8.5% of receipts ? {sarcasm}. If we returned to the (roughly triple the current) rates of the VietNam era or the mid-Clinton era, then we would be using 25% of tax receipts to service debt ! That should alarm any reasonable person.
Merely following those with a political ax to grind, like Krugman, and adding your own partisan ad hominems does not make you a well informed citizen, nor a critical thinker. You need to read the numbers and study the issue - and then give a coherent opinion on your position.
Debt, deficits and the overhang of social programs are very real problems to anyone who understands the situation on even a rudimentary level. Every Party & political partisan has a tendency to want to ignore the hard fiscal truths and prefer to spend like there is no next-term while they are in office.
There's no evidence in the case of Krugman that the claim is wrong. Of course there is a threshold for the stimulus to work, what evidence do you have the argument is specious?
And equally no evidence he is right - so it's just another unevidenced assertion, like pixies in your pantry. We don't give credence to unevidenced assertions here.
You brought up Krugman's assertions - the burden is on you to defend them.
And do you deny the economy is slowly recovering? Doesn't that suggest more stimulus might have made the recovery faster?
In the same exact sense that this graph suggests Internet explorer cause murders - (i.e. not at all). Correlation = causation fallacy.
http://gizmodo.com/5977989/internet-explorer-vs-murder-rate-will-be-your-favorite-chart-today
quite amusing. Draghi clearly knew who they are. 