Typical liberal economics by Paul Krugman
There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do.
There was a time when everyone wore onions on their belts, too. There was also a time when giverment, sorry, government, didn’t act like daddy between summer jobs.
But that was then. Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?
Perhaps, Paul, instead of this never-ending attempt to help people get unemployment, maybe you liberals, who have control of Washington, could look at enacting legislation that would actually incent companies to start hiring again, eh?
Lets see, we need to spend more money to provide unemployment insurance. But, we are broke!! Maybe that is the reason. What is amazing is that the Democratic congressmen seem to be getting the idea that WE ARE BROKE!!
As to starting a company and employing people, maybe we don’t want to do that as the cost of employment is so high that people can no longer afford it. Then add in the rules and regulations and laws and all the other crap that is our government and what do you have? Zero growth. AND WE ARE BROKE!!
Hey now !! all that negative talk doesn’t sound very patriotic to me it just sounds like you HATE the USA Stop saying bad things about my country !!
Oh good, more econ talk from my favorite retail sales clerk. Paul Krugman has proven an understanding of economics far superior to yours, Screech. I just reread a warning he issued in 02 on the housing bubble. He himself is surely a “liberal” as you say, but his are not “typical liberal economics”. More like reality-based economics. I don’t know if you went to college, Screech, but I did. And I can tell you that much of what was taught in university finance and economics courses circa early ’90s is now rather obsolete. Same goes for what was being pitched to business majors back when your clothes were fashionable.
America’s corporate welfare system should be enough to incent large companies to start hiring again. I’m guessing that you understand little about this concept, however. It would contradict your whole “I’m an econ guy” MEME. Moron.
David- the reason we are broke is not unemployment insurance. I realize that it might be comforting for someone of your intelligence to try to simplify it so. But it just isn’t reality. Kind of like Screech’s econ lessons.
The thing is, Bun Buns, he should know better. Wouldn’t it be better to have wise policies, you know, ones founded in the real world, not your fantasy Liberal World, that get people back to work, rather than sit on unemployment for month after month, year after year?
Reality is reality, Bun Buns. Your progressive ideals on how economies should work have failed again and again. The Soviet Union and its satellite nations. North Korea. Cuba. Japan in the 1990’s through current. European nations (who are changing their tunes, and moving towards a reality based economic model.) Look at China. They realized what worked and what didn’t, and, while their politics tend to be harsh, their economics tend to be more of the Classical Liberalism model, rather than your silly Socialist/Marxist ones.
And, if you had half a brain, you would realize that “corporate welfare system” or not, companies will not increase employment when they are unsure about coming policies, and do not like current policies, especially when people are not really buying. I will say, I do not agree with bailing out companies. If they fail, they fail. Period.
Bunny,
Thank you for your insights into my inteligence. I agree, it is far superior to most. I am sure you can not understand that when we don’t have money, because WE ARE BROKE!! That it is wise to stop spending money. I know that when my bank account get down that is what I do. But I notice that younger generation don’t understand this concept and continue to spend. Greece seems to have a problem as the younger generations could not understand the concept. We are headed in the same direction. But only someone with my level of intelligence and insight can understand that, so don’t worry. When you grow up you might be able to get some of this.
Well, Grandpa David, I am glad you can keep your personal finances in order, but that doesn’t mean you’re getting the comparison correct. If this is a problem with demand, not supply, you have to “prime the pump” in some fashion that doesn’t include Cinemax and a tube-sock. What happens when the people aren’t spending? Well, businesses don’t sell things. And when businesses don’t sell things they lay off workers, which means less people buy things…let me know when you grow up.
Eye,
I find it amazing that someone can write an entire paragraph and not really say anything. I guess what you are saying is that the government needs to give people money so they can spend it. But if we don’t have the money and are 13 billion in the hole, then that seems like a very childish concept. The government can certainly print more money, but then the money is worth less and the circle starts again, with worse effects than before. Or perhaps the government can get out of everyone’s way and life and allow business to do what it is best at, at the same time reducing taxes and markedly reducing spending and then we will be in a better situation. But that makes too much logic. Best that you just sit in the corner with your tube sock. Mama and Daddy will have some money for a short while until the depression really hits.
“And then I wore an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time” – Grampa Simpson
Funniest line, ever!
Keynesian would work if the current administration did not hate Corporations and big Business.
If you look at reality the economy is growing and expanding and yet. NO ONE is hiring.
Reason one. The current administration is antagonistic towards business and hence they are afraid to hire.
Reason two. Obama has shown them that they can do the job with less workers. Why hire more workers if LESS workers who WANT their jobs in bad times are willing to be more productive?
Reason three. Health care. If you have 10 employees you get tax breaks from the government. If you hire the 11th employee all those tax breaks go bye-bye. Additonally health care prices are going up and so business does not want to pay for escalating health care benefits. They have proven they can hire less people and still get the job done.
So why hire.
This is not about Keynesian or Krugman or any other economics theory.
This is about a Progressive administration that is antagonistic towards big business. As long as they are in charge, the economy will remain stagnant and jobs will continue to be elusive.
From the Progressive Magazine.
Nationalism is the egg that hatches fascism. And patriotism is but the father of nationalism. Patriotism is not something to play with. It’s highly toxic. When ingested, it corrodes the rational faculties. It gulls people into believing their leaders.It masks those who benefit most from state policy. Matthew Rothschild |
And it destroys the ability of people to get together, within the United States and across boundaries, to take on those with the most power: the multinational corporation.
Do not be deceived Business and Corporations understand the Progressive mindset and as long as we have a president, administration and congress that is run by the Progressive wing of the Democratic party and they are spouting mantra this is highly anti-corporate………there will be NO JOBS.
It has nothing to do with which economic theory is right or wrong.