Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TrollBuster9090

(5,954 posts)
Wed Jan 15, 2014, 07:20 PM Jan 2014

Limbaugh: What Economists Expected The Stimulus To Work? (Krugman?--uh NO)

Drugged Up Demagogue Rush Limbaugh asks the rhetorical question "What economists expected the stimulus would work!? We need names, because whoever they are are not qualified. Krugman?..."


http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/01/15/limbaugh-lashes-out-at-krugman-and-other-econom/197606

Well, actually, for the record, Krugman predicted The Stimulus WOULD NOT work....because A) it was too small, and B) most of it was wasted on stupid TAX CUTS, which have practically no stimulatory effect, and which were only put there to pander votes from Republicans, which they didn't get anyway.

Krugman on record on January 8th, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=0

Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50.

But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts — and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending. (A number of Senate Democrats apparently share these doubts.) Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center summed it up in the title of a recent blog posting: “lots of buck, not much bang.”

The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.

Why isn’t Mr. Obama trying to do more?

Is the plan being limited by fear of debt? There are dangers associated with large-scale government borrowing — and this week’s C.B.O. report projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for this year. But it would be even more dangerous to fall short in rescuing the economy. The president-elect spoke eloquently and accurately on Thursday about the consequences of failing to act — there’s a real risk that we’ll slide into a prolonged, Japanese-style deflationary trap


Krugman, who studied the Japanes 'Lost Decade' extensively, predicted that the policies of Obama and the Senate Democrats were similar to what Japan tried after their banking crisis, and would result in zombie banks, and a flaccid economy, with a decade of anemic job growth.

Score so far: KRUGMAN RIGHT 100% OF THE TIME. LIMBAUGH AN ASS, 100% OF THE TIME.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Limbaugh: What Economists...