All of history shows us that raising the debt is the way to get growth and increased welfare, so it would be IMMORAL to deny governments that right. I would say that a guy from India should understand that and not be Stupid SupplySider Sam, but I know that the stark majority of India's economists are happy Keynesians. I guess not ALL Indians can be smart, only those with degrees...
There are several informal (as in: not-substantial) mistakes in your reasoning and at least one big formal (as in: substantial) mistake.
Informal
- Your using weasel words and phrases like "Krugman thinks the regular Joe" which suggest liberal elitism, It's clearly your intention to paint Krugman as a liberal elitist in order to discredit him so "regular Joes" don't have to take him serious.
Your using disingenuous and distortive phrases like "the government lives beyond it's means". POint A: a government is NOT the same as a family household, it can print money while the family can not. Point B, this phrase completely disregards that governments do NOT spend they INVEST: the interstate highway was never paid for in cash, the government clearly BORROWED money to make that happen, because...... drumroll.... WE GET MORE OUT OF HAVING ROADS THAN WE PUT IN!!! It's clear why this phrase of spendthrifty government is used, it's trying to depict government as a irresponsible entity, much like whites see blacks. This is doubled down upon when cons try to tell us that the irresponsible government liberals are "spending" (read: wasting) good money (read: taxes paid by whites) to those undeserving (read: lazy blacks)!
- The big mystery is why cons got away with selling us the two trillion dollar Iraq war as some type of investment in oil revenues (= ZERO), while they also try to sell us on the idea that schools for poor blacks are a waste...
- Your disingenuous chant about "I used to agree with Krugman years ago, but now I've seen the light!". This is the exact same strategy by a lot of birthers and teabagger hillbillies when they falsely claim to have voted for Obama in 2008, but alas, they are now forced by Obama's "lies" about his birth certificate to conclude that he's the Anti-Christ!
- Also, if you switch from Krugmans way of seeing things to the opposite, WHILE ON A CONSERVATIVE SUPPLY SIDE blog, it's clear you've sold OUT to Big Bucks. In other words, you're biased and you got BRIBED, sorry PAID to change your PoV....
Formal
- You're disingenuously "forgetting" about the people who borrow all this debt. It's THEM that have to pay money back, not their grand kids! In other words, you are falsely suggesting that ALL of the debt has to be paid back by future generations, while that's clearly not so in ALL cases, only in some. When there's deflation the debt is NOT intergenerational, when there is inflation then, and only then is the debt intergenerational.
In short, you complain about Krugmans fallacies, but you commit a big fat fallacy of the Strawman yourself: You've distorted his point, in order to take it down easier. This makes you a big fat hypocrite, and on top of that, inconsistent
Latest Comments
Perhaps Krugman’s Grandson Will Understand Government Debt
No, Krugman supports inflation NOW, in this situation. Krugman does NOT support inflation in ALL circumstances. Stop lying and read a book
Perhaps Krugman’s Grandson Will Understand Government Debt
All of history shows us that raising the debt is the way to get growth and increased welfare, so it would be IMMORAL to deny governments that right. I would say that a guy from India should understand that and not be Stupid SupplySider Sam, but I know that the stark majority of India's economists are happy Keynesians. I guess not ALL Indians can be smart, only those with degrees...
Perhaps Krugman’s Grandson Will Understand Government Debt
There are several informal (as in: not-substantial) mistakes in your reasoning and at least one big formal (as in: substantial) mistake.
Informal
- Your using weasel words and phrases like "Krugman thinks the regular Joe" which suggest liberal elitism, It's clearly your intention to paint Krugman as a liberal elitist in order to discredit him so "regular Joes" don't have to take him serious.
Your using disingenuous and distortive phrases like "the government lives beyond it's means". POint A: a government is NOT the same as a family household, it can print money while the family can not. Point B, this phrase completely disregards that governments do NOT spend they INVEST: the interstate highway was never paid for in cash, the government clearly BORROWED money to make that happen, because...... drumroll.... WE GET MORE OUT OF HAVING ROADS THAN WE PUT IN!!! It's clear why this phrase of spendthrifty government is used, it's trying to depict government as a irresponsible entity, much like whites see blacks. This is doubled down upon when cons try to tell us that the irresponsible government liberals are "spending" (read: wasting) good money (read: taxes paid by whites) to those undeserving (read: lazy blacks)!
- The big mystery is why cons got away with selling us the two trillion dollar Iraq war as some type of investment in oil revenues (= ZERO), while they also try to sell us on the idea that schools for poor blacks are a waste...
- Your disingenuous chant about "I used to agree with Krugman years ago, but now I've seen the light!". This is the exact same strategy by a lot of birthers and teabagger hillbillies when they falsely claim to have voted for Obama in 2008, but alas, they are now forced by Obama's "lies" about his birth certificate to conclude that he's the Anti-Christ!
- Also, if you switch from Krugmans way of seeing things to the opposite, WHILE ON A CONSERVATIVE SUPPLY SIDE blog, it's clear you've sold OUT to Big Bucks. In other words, you're biased and you got BRIBED, sorry PAID to change your PoV....
Formal
- You're disingenuously "forgetting" about the people who borrow all this debt. It's THEM that have to pay money back, not their grand kids! In other words, you are falsely suggesting that ALL of the debt has to be paid back by future generations, while that's clearly not so in ALL cases, only in some. When there's deflation the debt is NOT intergenerational, when there is inflation then, and only then is the debt intergenerational.
In short, you complain about Krugmans fallacies, but you commit a big fat fallacy of the Strawman yourself: You've distorted his point, in order to take it down easier. This makes you a big fat hypocrite, and on top of that, inconsistent