We admit it. We don’t understand economic policy. To be more precise, we don’t understand standard liberal economic policy of which NYT columnist Paul Krugman favors as he documents a round-up of the presidential candidates’ proposals to lift this country out of the impending/looming/pretty-darn-near/already-in-full-swing economic recession. (Paul Krugman, who should know better, isn’t sure whether or not we are in one, though, the standard definition is at the bottom of the post as well as a secondary definition which we can assume is also Krugman’s fall-back definition).
For his part, Krugman offers no advice of his own but is clearly critical of the Republicans’ proposals and seems warm to the Clinton and Edwards plan of extending benefits to the unemployed, public investment in alternative energy and robbing Peter to pay…. ummm… (federal) aid to state and local governments.
Krugman saves his strongest salvo for Obama warning all of you Baracknids out there that he isn’t nearly as progressive as you all think (tut, tut) because he favors a long-term tax-cut plan. And we all know who are the only people devious enough to propose those sort of things.
But here’s where we are at a loss: Extending unemployment benefits, however niiiiice that may be… how does that actually provide an economic stimulus? How does extending the grace period for unemployment actually help the employment figures. We understand the compassionate motive behind it but how does it actually create more jobs? Didn’t we learn this lesson when Clinton, Bill passed the Welfare Reform Act in the mid-90s that effectively cut-off much the gravy train of unemployment benefits and which resulted in a swelling of the employment rolls?
Also, Krugman thinks we need to do something quick to head off this recession that we may or may not be in, but how does mere investment in alternative energy and again, extending unemployment (benefits) provide any short/mid-term economic stimulus? One’s gotta think the economic benefits of denuding woodlands to grow ethanol corn and constructing all those sexy refineries out on the prairie to produce the ethanol won’t show up for a few years down the road, if at all.
Yes, we cop to complete ignorance of standard Mark I, Mod 6 liberal economic policies.
And since you all asked….
The definition of “recession” from About.com is as follows: “The official definition of recession is when GDP growth is negative for two quarters or more.” Period. The secondary definition, however, applies to how one may happen to “feel” at the time, particularly when a Republican is in the Oval Office: “However, you can feel like you are in a recession before it has officially started because it is usually preceded by several quarters of slowing but positive growth.” (italics, ours)
For his part, Krugman offers no advice of his own but is clearly critical of the Republicans’ proposals and seems warm to the Clinton and Edwards plan of extending benefits to the unemployed, public investment in alternative energy and robbing Peter to pay…. ummm… (federal) aid to state and local governments.
Krugman saves his strongest salvo for Obama warning all of you Baracknids out there that he isn’t nearly as progressive as you all think (tut, tut) because he favors a long-term tax-cut plan. And we all know who are the only people devious enough to propose those sort of things.
But here’s where we are at a loss: Extending unemployment benefits, however niiiiice that may be… how does that actually provide an economic stimulus? How does extending the grace period for unemployment actually help the employment figures. We understand the compassionate motive behind it but how does it actually create more jobs? Didn’t we learn this lesson when Clinton, Bill passed the Welfare Reform Act in the mid-90s that effectively cut-off much the gravy train of unemployment benefits and which resulted in a swelling of the employment rolls?
Also, Krugman thinks we need to do something quick to head off this recession that we may or may not be in, but how does mere investment in alternative energy and again, extending unemployment (benefits) provide any short/mid-term economic stimulus? One’s gotta think the economic benefits of denuding woodlands to grow ethanol corn and constructing all those sexy refineries out on the prairie to produce the ethanol won’t show up for a few years down the road, if at all.
Yes, we cop to complete ignorance of standard Mark I, Mod 6 liberal economic policies.
And since you all asked….
The definition of “recession” from About.com is as follows: “The official definition of recession is when GDP growth is negative for two quarters or more.” Period. The secondary definition, however, applies to how one may happen to “feel” at the time, particularly when a Republican is in the Oval Office: “However, you can feel like you are in a recession before it has officially started because it is usually preceded by several quarters of slowing but positive growth.” (italics, ours)
Posts
1 comment:
Dean,
Not Paul Kurgman! He is the official economist of the satirical The People's Cube (Correct Opinions for Progressive Liberals). I saw the same article and refused to read the drivel. I am stealing my review comments from P.J. O'Rourke. This is a stupid, pretentious article that ultimately means nothing. Don't read it, I didn't.
Post a Comment