"His column is going to be scathing tomorrow morning"

That's what I said to my wife right after I read this headline last night:

World Leaders Agree on Timetable for Cutting Deficits

Sure enough, here's the title of Krugman's column as of this morning:

The Third Depression


  1. Krugman is too much... they endorsed a goal, BFD. If there is not substantial growth by 2013, they abandon the goal... again, BFD. How many goals about pulling troops out of Iraq were made?
    My goal is to read a Krugman article where he is not crawling into a hole screaming, "Push thru healthcare reform!!!" or "Double Dip Recession!!!". Clearly he needs to have some confidence that the Fed and Obama are doing everything short of print money (oh wait, they are) to avoid a catastrophic economic collapse.
    BTW, I have goal to walk on the moon by 2013.

  2. David: Great stuff in the comment above. I'd probably discount Krugman slightly if my hero worship of him didn't get in the way.

    I love how much the right hates him and I can't think of a political position he's taken I disagree with. More importantly, his facts are great and his analysis is outstanding (That I agree with the fear of a double-dip recession and wanted HCR - helps my view of his work). OK, so his column kinda spits in the face of the opposition. But you get a feel for the hate mail he must receive in his comment section.

  3. Yes, everyone knows you have a mancrush on Krugman.

    Wonder what he thinks about this:

    Basically says that debt can suppress long term growth. I am sure Krugman will scoff at this, draw a graph and point to Macroeconomic theory, but more spending can hurt the country as well according to the CBO.

  4. I actually think he would agree with most of the points in the article. Particularly this bit:

    'Spending on health care remains the federal budget's biggest problem, even after accounting for the estimated impact of the health reform law enacted in March.

    The health care law "made a dent in the problem but did not significantly reduce the challenge," Elmendorf said. "If all the health law measures are implemented, we end up with slightly lower federal health spending by the end of the 2020s." '

    I'd also postulate that he would say that the damage to an economy from high unemployment is far greater than that from the deficit. But, here's basically his reaction to austerity plans: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    It's hard not to (heart) somebody who can add convincing facts to my preconceived notions.