Skip to main content

View Diary: Rachel Maddow: "The most persistent [Republican] myth in the modern politics of American money." (120 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Krugman is ok with long-term deficits? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    News to me. When did he "theorize" this?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 08:54:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Really, that's what you read??? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That is certainly not what I wrote. Too bad, I was enjoying this conversation. I am sorry to see us begin talking passed one another.  

      I believe you raised the question about real economic theory vis a vis real economists. That's what I offered. You may follow Krugman with religious fervor, I merely take his words as enjoyable, thoughtful, and generally well measured. But I do note that he didn't make the cut for Bernie's group, nor for any position of influence in any recent administration.

      But, if you are a Krugman acolyte, then can you explain the inexorable path from deficit to inflation in his terms. He makes mention of this in a column on March 25, 2011 where he begins:

      Right now, deficits don’t matter — a point borne out by all the evidence. But there’s a school of thought — the modern monetary theory people — who say that deficits never matter, as long as you have your own currency.
      This immediately throws up a straw man argument which Krugman then follows to it logical conclusion. Easy when you start with a false premise. However, contrary to Krugman's assertion, MMT says deficits are critically important, they always matter, they are almost always necessary, and they must be carefully calibrated. Aside from that, Krugman got it right.

      I'm done. If you want to get educated on the subject go to New Economic Perspectives or even go to the Money and Public Purpose group here at DK.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site