vote down
flag
marginalrevolution.com - 2/2/2009
—
Paul Krugman writes : ...he [Brad DeLong] fails to note that it’s not just wrong, it’s 180 degrees wrong: a
temporary increase in government spending should have a larger impact
on demand than a permanent increase, not a smaller impact. I intend my comments as the most boring blog post I have ...
marginalrevolution.com - 2/2/2009
—
marginalrevolution.com —
Let's say government can spend $100 billion today
or spend the present expected value of $100 billion,...
stretched out over time so it is a commitment in perpetuity. Both spending programs are financed by bonds. So that's the same net ...
(more)
Permanent vs. temporary increases in government ...
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com - 2/1/2009
—
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com —
Brad DeLong links to Megan McArdle saying something
wrong about the effects of a temporary increase in...
government spending. But he fails to note that it's not just wrong, it's 180 degrees wrong: a temporary increase in government spending should have ...
(more)
Another temporary misunderstanding
econlog.econlib.org - 1/27/2009
—
econlog.econlib.org —
(January 26, 2009 06:41 PM, by Arnold Kling)
Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office,...
writes, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $169 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year ...
(more)
Timely? Temporary?
Comments
Blog Reactions
First, We Kill All the Economists
Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed —
... Krugman and Tyler Cowen batting back and forth at one another about spending and stimulus. My frustration isn't so much the schoolyard silliness, but the demonstrated inability of prominent economists to talk to one another in the same language with words meaning the same thing and not freighted with a metric ton (or ten) of political baggage. Another temporary misunderstanding (Krugman) Permanent vs. temporary increases in government consumption (Cowen) Read before linking (wonkish) (Krugman) Permanent vs. ...
Related Content
