Libertarian Times

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul."
– George Bernard Shaw

Warning: include_once(/home/content/h/o/s/hostmozart/html/advertise.wolfeblog.net/advertisements-libertariantimes-leaderboard.php) [function.include-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/h/o/s/hostmozart/html/libertariantimes.com/modules/mod_php/mod_php.php(36) : eval()'d code on line 6

Warning: include_once() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/content/h/o/s/hostmozart/html/advertise.wolfeblog.net/advertisements-libertariantimes-leaderboard.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/php5/lib/php') in /home/content/h/o/s/hostmozart/html/libertariantimes.com/modules/mod_php/mod_php.php(36) : eval()'d code on line 6

Give us a plan Mr. Krugman

Written by M. Farmer

Friday, 01 June 2012 20:41

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB ^[1]

Rather than this constant whing about an austerity agenda that's practically non-existent, Krugman should suggest a dollar amount and type of spending that will bring about economic recovery. The "austerity" about which Krugman whines is actually a curb in spending increases. How much more spending is necessary to generate economic growth?

Is it true, as Krugman once suggested, that an invasion by aliens which destroyed a large part of the nation would be stimulative enough to creat recovery? If so, then how many buildings should be destroyed in order to generate recovery? I would find Krugman more credible if he could be more specific about spending -- how much? what type of spending? what happens to the workers when recovery begins? do we keep tearing down and rebuilding them over and over?

In the article above, Krugman has gone from whining about a non-existent austerity to saying the real motive is starve the State. If only, but, alas, again Krugman is tilting at windmills. Yes, there is still rhetoric claiming a desire to limit government, but, as always, the State is becoming more not less powerful. Now, there is pressure on the Fed to continue stimulating the economy, and it most surely will as we get closer to the election. The NYT today wrote about the growing dependence on Fed stimulation. When the Fed stops stimulating, the economy falls. Krugman, and the NYT, say this is indicative of not enough stimulation. So, again, how much is enough?

This game can go one forever. The Fed stimulates and the economy gets a little jolt, then the economy begins shrinking, then the Fed jolts it again, and each time the economy goes down, Krugman and other progressives say the Fed stimulation is not enough. So, how much is enough? 4 trillion? 5 trillion?

Why doesn't every country in the world decide to print their own money, then have their ace economist come up with the correct amount of stimulus, so the whole world can enjoy ever-lasting economic growth?