I read the article she wrote over at The Wall Street Journal. She is great. Her newest book is a must read: The Forgotten Man.

Brilliant, Dr. Krugman.

I have an added wrinkle for “New Trade Theory“–protect infant businesses by not taxing and regulating them to death.

And nothing says *declining returns to scale *quite like a New Deal-esque program: put a dollar in, get fifty cents worth of output back.

Unlike in the 1930s, we cannot afford a New-New-Deal with the massive debt and unfunded liabilities we already have from 70+ years of central planning and a welfare state. Krugman seems to think there is a magic pot of gold from which the government takes to spend on “fixing” the economy. The producers in this country are getting close to being tapped out through oppressive taxation and regulation. Piling on more, combined with a weakening, diluted dollar (thanks Ben Bernake) will make it worse. As we slide more and more into disrepair and insolvency, I hope that history will show this Keynesian nonsense promoted by Krugman, Paulson, Bernake and the rest of the clowns to be a lie. Those advocating free-market economics, sound money, and less regulation will be proven right.

can always say that the New Deal would’ve been more successful if it had gone further and spent more money. Sure, why not? If X dollars of federal spending can arguably reduce unemployment to as little as 9%, then X + Y dollars can reduce it even more. Simple, eh? And Krugman’s point was arguably confirmed during WWII, as the Great Depression ended because the war effort stimulated the economy while simultaneously removing 11 million men and women from the civilian workforce and putting them on the federal payroll. But the waste and inefficiency in federal spending during the war were monumental, tolerated for a limited time only because of the urgency of the war effort. As the Soviets discovered, that kind of spending program is disastrous on a prolonged basis. So Krugman can make his academic debating points, but as an economist proposing useful fiscal policy, he is totally irrelevant

it is so simple that even a LIBERAL could understand it if they took a few minutes to actually THINK!!

Liberals love Govt. They will make these “jobs” (Biden, 3 letter word) Public (Govt paid) sector jobs rather than attempting to broaden Private sector employment. In this context, the Infrastructure build, 90% will be “temporary” jobs anyway (even if Private sector, projects end jobs end), and therefore no real long-term benefit. My point here though…

Any “job” that the Govt creates makes a demand to TAX Private sector more (or inflates Deficit/Debt) to pay for these non-productive (in so far as generating real “taxable”) income as the funds are “tax dollars” taken from actual productive citizens’ wages to begin with! Such an obvious/easy concept to most – anything the Govt spends is OUR MONEY taken from the Economy.

For every Govt. worker (any Govt. paid job or make-do worker) requires the allocation of dozens of “actual” Private sector economy “real” jobs to fund the Govt paycheck. This is NOT a solution, but a recipe for further disaster.

For the SLOW (read: Liberals)… in order to pay someone in a job created by the Govt and paid by Govt for say $30,000/year (w/o bothering to go into other costs above that simple wage) we must take AWAY from (let’s say) 20 peoples’ taxes (under an obvious assumption, for ease sake, that those 20 paid $1,500 in Federal Income Tax each). That is, of course, then $30,000 that the Federal Govt DOESN’T HAVE to WASTE (sorry, spend) on some other program (like National Defense see Can we afford the Obama/Dems $urrender doctrine and Dems and Law of unintended consequences) – which you know they will NOT cut any other programs to make up for. INCREASING DEBT!!! If you can’t understand with this GROSS over-simplification, you’re hopeless!

It is ONLY Private sector job creation that benefits the country.