Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PAUL KRUGMAN: The Deficit Is Basically Solved
TBI ^ | 1-11-2013 | Walter Hickey

Posted on 01/11/2013 8:21:14 AM PST by blam

PAUL KRUGMAN: The Deficit Is Basically Solved

Walter Hickey
Jan. 10, 2013, 4:00 PM

Many people think that fixing the deficit is a painful process that involves deep cuts to crucial programs. Some think the process is too hard, and it's not worth trying yet.

That's not correct, according to a chart from from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' Richard Kogan showing just how far the United States has come in the past two years.

We've talked before about how the painless and most effective solution to the deficit is additional growth in GDP. As the recovery progresses and GDP rises, the government will get more revenue from increased productivity. We've also pointed out that — fundamentally — we don't have a spending problem.

CBPP

Paul Krugman made the point that the chart shows how far we've come on the deficit and how easy it will be to solve moving forward.

Richard Kogan points out that the debt to GDP is very important indicator, and can't rise forever. "If it did," he says, "that would shrink the amount of national saving available for private investment, ultimately impairing productivity growth and, in turn, living standards."

In short, seeing what we're seeing is a good thing.

The chart shows the stabilization of the debt to GDP ratio of the United States.

As late as 2011, the U.S. was bound for an unmitigated increase in debt to GDP ratio. Thanks to two bills, the deficit is close to coming under control: The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which came from the debt ceiling negotiations and mandates $1.2 trillion in cuts. The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA), which was signed two weeks ago to avert the fiscal cliff and raised taxes on high earners.

(snip)

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bsarticle; businessinsider; deficit; deficitsdontmatter; economy; hogwash; idiocy; krugman; lunacy; paulkrugman; recession; recovery; silly; worsteconomistever; zerohedge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
I guess we can borrow and spend our way out of debt?
1 posted on 01/11/2013 8:21:27 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
"The deficit is basically solved" - so is the value of a Nobel Prize.
2 posted on 01/11/2013 8:23:48 AM PST by Baynative (Those that work for a living are now outnumbered by those that vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Just like Greece did. [/s is this necessary?]

America is run by a tax cheat and
an undocumented liar.


3 posted on 01/11/2013 8:25:02 AM PST by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

My creditors have never worried about my new debts as long as I have been paying off my debts to them, which the U.S. has NOT been doing.


4 posted on 01/11/2013 8:25:22 AM PST by Pecos (If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

You don’t need to be good at math to win the Nobel prize, I guess.


5 posted on 01/11/2013 8:28:46 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Magic must be real.


6 posted on 01/11/2013 8:29:28 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Krugman would flunk even the most basic engineering math.

A Fourier transform is completely beyond his ability.

However, his math is evidently good enough to get a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Such is the (dismal) state of both the economics profession and the (laughable) Nobel Committee in Economics.


7 posted on 01/11/2013 8:30:52 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Well if Krugman says so it must be true. I feel so much better now.


8 posted on 01/11/2013 8:31:59 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

What a MAROON! That chart shows the same level of pain for 10 years like that’s a GOOD THING... and that’s assuming that the tax increases do the historical OPPOSITE of what we know they will do and they assume that the budget will shrink by $1.2T . my prediction ,, AND I’M NOT A NOBEL WINNING ECONOMIST ,, is that we will see the opposite of all the pretty prediction lines with the most likely outcome having us being at 88% debt/gdp by 2017 or 2018 .


9 posted on 01/11/2013 8:33:28 AM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Will they be teaching this new math in schools?

Q: If Johnny has 10 apples but signed a contract to deliver 100 apples, how many apples short of fulfilling his obligation will Johnny be?

A: None, Johnny just needs to make his 10 apples extra shiny and declare he delivered on his obligation.

10 posted on 01/11/2013 8:33:51 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

There is no doubt that the best solution to the deficit problem is strong economic growth — but only if spending is constrained to grow at a much slower rate than revenues. Until that happens, the deficit will never be solved.


11 posted on 01/11/2013 8:35:03 AM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

The chart makes no sense. Even without the Budget Control Act of 2011 or the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013 the chart shows the debt to GDP ratio flattening out in 2014. Now assuming the anemic GDP growth of 2% we’ve been having, that means that the debt increase would have to match that. If the debt went up 2%, that would imply a deficit of about $330 billion. Now compare that to the deficits in the $1.2 trillion range we’ve been running since Obama entered office. Has anyone seen any proposals for a $900 billion spending reduction for FY 2013 or 2014?


12 posted on 01/11/2013 8:35:04 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Choose one: the yellow and black flag of the Tea Party or the white flag of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

great googly moogly, have you read any of the comments at the source?

Wow, people are delusional!


13 posted on 01/11/2013 8:35:10 AM PST by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

`Comrades! Attention Comrades ...’


14 posted on 01/11/2013 8:35:17 AM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Krugman: An agent of disinformation and demise.


15 posted on 01/11/2013 8:37:37 AM PST by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Oh, goodie. The deficit is gone, now we can spend even more money. And since government spending is figured in as part of the GDP, the GDP will keep growing too!

Happy daze are here again!


16 posted on 01/11/2013 8:38:43 AM PST by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
I could care less what the GDP is -- I care about Federal spending. Over the past 20 years, federal spending grew 71 percent faster than inflation. Entitlement spending more than doubled over the past 20 years, growing by 110 percent (after adjusting for inflation). Discretionary spending grew by 60 percent. Deficits have pushed up the debt each year since 2002 as federal spending exceeded revenue. Fiscal year 2012 marked the fourth consecutive year of $1 trillion deficits. The only reason we're not broke is that interest costs have remained manageable as interest rates have fallen to all-time lows.

In 1962, defense spending was nearly half the total federal budget (49 percent); Social Security and other mandatory programs were less than one-third of the budget (31 percent). Two major entitlement programs, Medicaid and Medicare, were signed into law by President Johnson in 1965. In 2012 entitlements were nearly 62 percent of total spending, while defense dropped to less than one-fifth (18.7 percent) of the budget.

We have a spending problem.

17 posted on 01/11/2013 8:40:58 AM PST by USNA74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Krugman just makes assumptions and ignores the second level effects of what would happen if everyone had a herd of Skittle pooping unicorns.
18 posted on 01/11/2013 8:41:11 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Choose one: the yellow and black flag of the Tea Party or the white flag of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale; BillyBoy; ..
RE :”I guess we can borrow and spend our way out of debt? “

Here is what he saying :

1) the gubment *borrows* and spends
2) those getting that money in jobs or stimulus checks or whatever, they spend the $$$
3) More people are needed in economy to service the increased spending demand
4) More people pay taxes, revenue goes up decreasing the deficit.
5) net effect is??? less deficit than if gov didnt do #1??

This is basically a (national debt) feedback loop that involves billion of
peoples (world economy) actions and reactions to these limited government directed stimulus: tax cuts or spending.

Sure, a major recession will cut revenues, sure stimulus in #1 will create a temporary increase in GDP and tax revenue, but beyond that...?. Beyond that they dont have a clue

In fact GWB tried this in response to a recession: huge increases in spending+ huge tax cuts +lots of Fed stimulus(interest rates+easy loans) = lots of stimulus, and it all blew up in 2007 to 2008 anyway.

Does Krug praise this? No, he says we didnt need stimulus under Bush.

19 posted on 01/11/2013 8:42:35 AM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to O is NO principle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

I suggest Krugman should read the Trustee's Reoprt on SS and Medicare to understand why entitlements will consume the entire federal budget unless they are reformed. By 2030 there will be just two workers for every retiree and one in five Americans will be 65 or older--twice what it is now. Entitlement spending is increasing faster than GDP growth.

20 posted on 01/11/2013 8:43:31 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Once you join a cult your thinking tends to get very muddled and confused.


21 posted on 01/11/2013 8:44:02 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Evidently the GDP ratio grows at astronomical rates until 2014 when a miracle happens and we stop spending like drunken monkeys or the economy starts booming. Gee, What happens in 2014 that causes that to happen? Asteroid? Earthquake? US wins the worldwide lottery? ... (I didn’t read the article at the link but I can still laugh at it)


22 posted on 01/11/2013 8:46:24 AM PST by TexGuy (If it has the slimmest of chances of being considered sarcasm ... IT IS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

The article does not mention the implied growth rate in GDP in order for it to be true. My guess is that it’s in the 3%+ range and we are nowhere near that. The CBO estimates have been wildly wrong are far more positive than reality. I do forecasting for a living and it is ALL ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS.


23 posted on 01/11/2013 8:47:14 AM PST by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
A: None, Johnny just needs to make his 10 apples extra shiny and declare he delivered on his obligation.

... and call anyone who points out the discrepancy a backwards-thinking racist bigot.

24 posted on 01/11/2013 8:47:14 AM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
Investors Are Staging One Of The Biggest Moves Into Equities Of All Time
25 posted on 01/11/2013 8:52:27 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

The final arrow in the quiver is monetizing the debt. It will come to that. It is what they are already doing to one degree or another and have been doing for a long time. However, this arrow is the one that will lead to hyperinflation. It is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when.

And when it happens, the next phase will be world war.


26 posted on 01/11/2013 8:56:00 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

The graph is misleading as it seems to show a large drop in the budget deficit but in reality it only goes from 82 to 72% of GDP. Still an unsustainable level of spending. It also doesnt show what happens to the National Debt which continues to rise.


27 posted on 01/11/2013 8:56:40 AM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

The racist/bigot moniker is only applied after the Carneyesque spokesperson declares the questioner isn’t intelligent enough to understand mathematical equations on Johnny’s level.


28 posted on 01/11/2013 9:00:05 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Now compare that to the deficits in the $1.2 trillion range we’ve been running since Obama entered office. Has anyone seen any proposals for a $900 billion spending reduction for FY 2013 or 2014?

Agree. I find it interesting that they assume that the $1,2 trillion in BCA cuts will actually be made. They have now been postponed for two months and I would wager that Congress will use some sleight of hand accounting tricks to postpone and deflect the cuts so as to continue to fund defense and the welfare state.

And they assume that raising the taxes on the wealthy under the ATRA will bring in more revenue and not hurt GDP growth. Usually when you tax something more, you get less of it.

And to really get things stablized they are suggesting another $1.4 trillion in combined tax hikes and spending cuts. With the already slow growth in GDP, high unemployment levels and household income declining by close to 10%, any projections on the growth of our GDP are clearly suspect.

The first real indicator will be whether the mandated BCA cuts will really occur. If we can't cut $100 billion a year out of a $3.7 trillion annual budget, then we have a failure of political will to do what is necessary to get us off of this fiscal path of destruction.

29 posted on 01/11/2013 9:01:58 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude

And they are only considering the publicly held debt, not the $5 trillion in the various trust funds like SS, HI, federal pensions, etc.


30 posted on 01/11/2013 9:04:34 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: expat2
"There is no doubt that the best solution to the deficit problem is strong economic growth — but only if spending is constrained to grow at a much slower rate than revenues. Until that happens, the deficit will never be solved."

The argument forgets one key fact, no one in the government expects to or wants to pay down the existing federal debt. The ace in the hole is the Federal Reserve. They are the never ending sleight of hand provider of money to the government. Buy the paper, credit the governments bank account and voila!, instant cash to spend. Pretty neat trick, keep borrowing from yourself and pay it back with more paper! Krugman channels Bullwinkle: "Nothing up our sleeves!". I just do not want to be around when the day of reckoning comes.

31 posted on 01/11/2013 9:15:44 AM PST by buckalfa (Tilting at Windmills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam

If you subtract deficit spending from GDP, GDP is contracting every year.


32 posted on 01/11/2013 9:17:30 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
A: None, Johnny just needs to make his 10 apples extra shiny and declare he delivered on his obligation.

In other words... Forget about the problem, it will go away.

33 posted on 01/11/2013 9:19:20 AM PST by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam

Honest to god, these libs are aliens from another planet.


34 posted on 01/11/2013 9:20:43 AM PST by cblue55 (The original point and click interface was a Smith and Wesson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Nobody will notice Krugman’s platinum coin they’re all hiding their guns


35 posted on 01/11/2013 9:26:28 AM PST by mosesdapoet ("A voice crying in the wilderness make streight for the way of the Lord")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Basically the same thing that Obama told Boehner.

“We don’t have a spending problem. The deficits are caused by out-of-control health care costs....and I fixed that!”


36 posted on 01/11/2013 9:30:50 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Oh that’s great, so my family, and children and grandchildren’s families aren’t responsible for $350,000 of the Marxist democrat’s debt!!?? Did the Fed just pay off that $5+ trillion we owe to other countries and forgive the $12 trillion we owe ourselves? Garsh this is regular plop plop fizz fizz news....so why did we need to raise taxes?


37 posted on 01/11/2013 9:47:11 AM PST by Ms. Blunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

So, basically this says we have the problem solved if we keep in place the BCA cuts of sequestration (which nobody wants) AND add another $1.4T in cuts over the next ten years ($140B/year).

That is probably true, but the BCA cuts were designed as a draconian penalty to motivate more carefully designed cuts. If congress can agree to replace the BCA with something better, it will certainly not be more severe cuts and they certainly won’t cut another $140B/year on top of that.

This is like saying that if we just cut spending enough we won’t have to worry about deficits. DOH!


38 posted on 01/11/2013 9:47:53 AM PST by tentmaker (Galt's Gulch is a state of mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Could we PLEASE give Paul Krugman to the Red Chinese to pay off all our debt to them?


39 posted on 01/11/2013 9:55:27 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
uemployment is solved too. the rate is falling. just look at the number of people employed. oopps. wait a minute. don’t look at that
40 posted on 01/11/2013 10:20:35 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

I tweeted the author about the growth rate. The assumption is that GDP growth between 14-17 is 4.3%. That’s very, very strong considering the strongest four year average growth over the last decade is 3.0% (and that was 2002 which incuded the end of the dot com boom). This chart would look very different at 3% GDP growth instead of 4%+.


41 posted on 01/11/2013 10:23:39 AM PST by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
We've talked before about how the painless and most effective solution to the deficit is additional growth in GDP...spoken like a true capitalist.....
42 posted on 01/11/2013 10:26:19 AM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Double plus ungood!


43 posted on 01/11/2013 10:30:16 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
“Krugman would flunk even the most basic engineering math.

A Fourier transform is completely beyond his ability.

However, his math is evidently good enough to get a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Such is the (dismal) state of both the economics profession and the (laughable) Nobel Committee in Economics.”

Krugman won his Nobel Prize for path-breaking work on the geography of international trade, not for his knowledge of fiscal policy and macroeconomics in general. Issac Newton was an alchemist, Linus Pauling believed that vitamin C was the cure for everything from cancer to the common cold, and Louis Ignarro believes that l-arginine is a cure-all for heart disease. Among scientists, this is called the “Nobel disease”; the arrogance possessed by some Nobel Prize winners that causes them to believe their specific knowledge and achievements in one narrow field of study gives them expertise in some (or all) other fields.

44 posted on 01/11/2013 10:38:08 AM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam

Liberalism: The art of self-deception


45 posted on 01/11/2013 10:38:31 AM PST by Rocky (Obama is pure evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Has the author ever tried that line with a credit card company that wants to pull his line of credit ? Just give him more credit and he can then handle the monthly payments. What will happen to US treasury revenue when world war breaks out ? How will we pay for the next world war when spending is already maxed ?


46 posted on 01/11/2013 10:49:36 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
the debt to GDP is very important indicator, and can't rise forever. "If it did," he says, "that would shrink the amount of national saving available for private investment, ultimately impairing productivity growth and, in turn, living standards."

As productivity declines, the debt to GDP ratio would increase. Sheesh.

47 posted on 01/11/2013 10:52:07 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Krugman’s solution is to basically print up $16 trillion in new money and use that money to buy back all outstanding T-bills. No more debt. (Of course it would take several years of 92% unemployment to ‘fix’ the rampant inflation that would follow).


48 posted on 01/11/2013 11:03:14 AM PST by Hoodat ("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis
Magic must be real.

No, but stupid is.

49 posted on 01/11/2013 11:10:57 AM PST by Freedumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; blam; Grampa Dave; GOPJ; thouworm; Libloather; justiceseeker93; ...
Ohaha criticized GWB for doing this when a recession hit: huge increases in spending plus huge tax cuts plus lots of Fed stimulus (interest rates+easy loans), TARP........and it all blew up in 2007 to 2008.

Remember Ohaha's self-serving SOTU speech? Sounding like "he just took office" in January 2011 with a Republican congress. T'was that 2008 ex-Republican POTUS and Republican congress who screwed everything up.

Therefore Ohaha couldn't fix EVERYTHING with the Republican congress blocking all his GREAT ideas. NO MENTION of the years Democrats controlled everything---and nothing got done---unless you count Congress getting rich on insider info (/snix).

=========================================

In a fair accounting, President Obama is responsible (along with the then-Democratic Congress) for the $1.3 trillion in deficit spending in 2010 and the estimated $1.6 trillion in deficit spending in 2011. He [Obama] should not get credit, moreover, for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year—loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally.

The Treasury Department says that all but $5 billion of the TARP bank loans has now been repaid. The portion of repayments that was for loans issued in 2009 should be deducted from Bush’s deficit tally, not credited to Obama as deficit savings. There is some astounding number crunching in this article, and a chart of modern day president’s “average annual deficit spending” ........a frightening conclusion of what happens if Obama has an 8 year term.


50 posted on 01/11/2013 1:32:28 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson