NP - Toryism (Austerity) Isn't Working.

[Paul Mackin]

OK, Alice has me over a barrel.  I'll concede that just because Krug 
provides a moral argument in support of his case doesn't mean that Ben 
enjoys sending widows and orphans into the street.

I will take a wait and see attitude as to whether Ben is too moral for 
their to be a pundit job behind his tenure at the Fed.

P

On 4/27/2012 8:48 PM, alice wellintown wrote:
>   Isn't Krugman's main point that it's wrong to justify unemployment's
>> remaining at high levels on the grounds that adequate stimulus might produce
>> small amounts of inflation.  This sounds like more of a moral than a
>> political argument. It's also textbook macroeconomics.
>
> Both positions are textbook.
> Who is political?
> Krug.
> Ben has the moral high ground here.
> And, thatz a good thing. If Krug were Fed Chair and Ben journalist, I
> would expect Krug to take the moral position and Ben to take the
> political one.
> Of course, Ben would not make a good journailst; he's not political enough.
> Krug would not make a good Fed Chair; he's not moral enough. Krug is
> passionate; he believes, idologically.
> Ben is cool; he doesn't believe; he knows that textbooks are useful
> books but and that economic policy never follows the book. One has to
> be practical. One has to care, but keep cool.
>
>
>> Inflicting unnecessary pain is a sin and fiscal stimulus produces growth,
>> both points working together, make his case pretty persuasive.
>
> The Fed has no reason, no justifcation, no plan,  to inflict pain, and
> unneccesary pain or suffering is not economic. Moral? Political? Sin?
> These are journailistic fantacies.
>
> The question is simple: how does the Fed do its job? The answer is
> also simple; It does its job well. Krug has become the Chomsky of
> economics. He should quit while he's behinid. Ben will make a fool of
> him in time.
>