tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post2567300147527735639..comments2024-03-28T20:28:01.733-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Paul Krugman calls "Soviet"mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84829215795442638102012-05-27T20:34:10.493-04:002012-05-27T20:34:10.493-04:00Just another kinda sad example of how the discours...Just another kinda sad example of how the discourse is trending toward extremism. And Krugman doesn't even see how he contributes to this growing extremism.<br /><br />But I think Krugman starts out with an valid observation. I have noticed that conservative elites and politicians all use the same few words such as "job creator" as if they have been all trained by Frank Luntz (I think that's his name). And probably half the MSM goes along with it.<br /><br />It feels very much like 1984 (or maybe 1983 at this point). I find it very frustrating.John Zelnickernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-52844941754054501222012-05-27T15:09:25.295-04:002012-05-27T15:09:25.295-04:00See also Michael Robert's article - Krugman an...See also Michael Robert's article - <a href="http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/krugman-and-depression-economics/" rel="nofollow">Krugman and depression economics</a><br /><br />Quote:<br /><i>In an appendix in his book, Krugman considers the evidence that government spending on armaments is the way out of depression. He notes that World War 2 military spending was actually ‘disappointing’ in boosting growth because of “rationing and restrictions on private construction” while the Korean war was also less than effective because of “sharply raised taxes”. But are wars the only way to get big government spending implemented? According to Krugman, “the answer, unfortunately, is yes. Big spending programs rarely happen except in response to war or the threat thereof.” So more government spending does not really seem to be a promising solution to the depression, after all.<br /><br />Marxist economics can explain why. Capitalists only invest more if it is profitable to do so, not because it might be in the ‘national interest’. The role of profitability is totally missing in Krugman’s nicely written book. For him, profit is irrelevant: what matters is incomes, spending and saving. And yet Marx’s law of profitability best explains why there will be recurring slumps caused by the tendency for profitability to fall.<br /><br />The only way to revive that profitability is through slumps that destroy the value of accumulated capital, so that profitability (relative to remaining value) will then rise and allow the process of accumulation to resume. </i><br /><br />Also relevant <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RnA5tbADpk" rel="nofollow">Bernard Lietaer's small talk on compound interest </a>Clonalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290009954839887975noreply@blogger.com