> but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.
I don't like how mainstream economists tend to portray deflation: that it's a terrible thing that necessarily leads to depression. I mean, is the average man on the street going have more money to spend if the stuff he needs (food, energy, etc) costs 5% more than it did last year? I'm not saying deflation is always a good thing, but particularly in times of declining incomes, I find it hard to believe it's the scary monster mainstream economists make it out to be.
And I particularly don't like how Krugman is always so quick to defend large debt loads. He keeps advocating to borrow borrow borrow, with seemingly no restraint. Is that really sustainable?
> America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before
Ya, because we're printing the rest. That is NOT a good thing.
But of course, Krugman won't say that, or consequences that result from such policies.
I don't like how mainstream economists tend to portray deflation: that it's a terrible thing that necessarily leads to depression. I mean, is the average man on the street going have more money to spend if the stuff he needs (food, energy, etc) costs 5% more than it did last year? I'm not saying deflation is always a good thing, but particularly in times of declining incomes, I find it hard to believe it's the scary monster mainstream economists make it out to be.
And I particularly don't like how Krugman is always so quick to defend large debt loads. He keeps advocating to borrow borrow borrow, with seemingly no restraint. Is that really sustainable?
> America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before
Ya, because we're printing the rest. That is NOT a good thing.
But of course, Krugman won't say that, or consequences that result from such policies.