Samuel Brittan’s recipe for recovery

Ahem:

Commercial banks certainly worsened the recession by greedily seeking higher returns than those provided by market interest rates; and they can put grit in the recovery by refusing to lend. I can only suggest making Paul Krugman, the radical Keynesian economist, Comptroller of the US Currency with over-reaching powers to take over old banks and initiate new ones, with similar appointments in other countries.

I would, however, quarrel with designating me a “radical Keynesian.” I’m just a Keynesian, willing to follow the logic of my analysis. A perfectly standard New Keynesian model, with intertemporal optimization and all that — the kind of model that is standard in freshwater courses — says that under current conditions fiscal stimulus should be very strong, much stronger than what we’re actually doing. Ryan Lizza’s piece on the Obama economics team makes it clear that Christina Romer — whom nobody would call radical — reached more or less the same conclusions in her economic analysis that I did.

The point is that what passes for “sound” economics these days (and maybe most days) isn’t actually sound economics — it’s economic analysis trimmed and softened to fit political realities/prejudices. Questioning that notion of soundness isn’t being radical; it’s just being intellectually honest.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Don’t you mean saltwater?

Intellectual honesty is indeed radical in our modern political environment. Keep up the good work.

I think you are mistaken when you say no one would call Romer a radical. She works for Obama and therefore must be a radical, right? Isn’t that how logic works?

Well said; verything which should be done politically or economically is being trimmed and fitted to the whims of the radical right, who have dragged every decision past center or even center right.

The only advantage to having a Democratic majority seems to be getting a ‘ W ‘ instead of an ‘ L ‘ – Dems need to realize all political & economic negotiations must start from the far left in order to balance the far right and eventually wind up anywhere close to the center.

You da man, Paul!

I suspect that the author used the wrong word: “radical” vs. “militant” perhaps?

Well, sure, that’s what _you_ say. But Neil Cavuto and Donald Luskin say something else. The truth must be in the middle!

Love,
Every Pundit in America

I couldn’t agree with you more Doctor Krugman. It’s a disgrace to economics when people twist economic theory and fact in order to cater to their political ideologies. The Keynesian model is clearly the most appropriate form of economic theory to follow in order to mitigate this catastrophic era in 21st Century.

Paul,

Well said….

I think that Capital-ism a la Wall Street will only work if “Capital Punishment” is used to deal with those who refuse/resist sound economic/financial/intellectually honest advise and cause the system to collapse….

This is a Capital Idea and radical and revolutionary one might say!

Getting fired with a golden hand-shake is a kick below the waist-line to the shareholders and the taxpayers alike!

Paul

I think it is clear from the context of Mr. Brittan’s reference that he thinks you are not only intellectually honest but also have the integrity and courage needed to do the necessary with the financial system, that he thinks “radical” action is necessary and good under the present circumstances.

“Sensible” is the word as far as I’m concerned.

I am still hoping for the “get your Ph. D in economics at home” reading list from Paul, and I don’t care how long or difficult it is. That is what I am hoping for.

Joseph O’Shaughnessy October 16, 2009 · 11:32 am

I think we need to have some counter to the obvious, which, after much reading and consideration, i agree is similar to your viewpoint and that of Romer, et al.

The question is: what happens next? Just as it is clear that there is no rational reason for the market to jump above 10,000, there is no rational reason why more stimulus will not work. The objections are (failed) ideology and political antagonism.

So what’s the plan, man? Krugman?

I don’t see how this thing will not fold back on us…not saying that we should rein things in…but that it will not come back as inflation when things turn up.

Now, I say…taxes. And I have already said broad and modest duties on U.S. corporate imports.

None of that is politically popular. So what politically do-able ideas are there? Because if there are none…certainly a Republican Congress would not care, and apparently a 25% conservative Democratic Senate would not care…if inflation goes through the roof.

You cannot assume “smart” and you cannot assume “with integrity” when talking about Congress any longer. If nothing else, health care reform has shown us the future without lobbying reform and without FCC action to break up the media.

The thing is, intellectual honesty *is* radical.

Can’t we learn from the past any more? Geez.

I am very concerned with the continued rise in unemployment (I’ll bet we’ll be over 600,000 in November)with the rising layoffs in agriculture and other summer employment), and the steady increases in residential foreclosure.

As a marketing/econ major in the late 70’s we heard the (then) standard mantra: the housing sector, both new and resale, is the “backbone” of our society. As a young real estate agent in 1983, every seminar and class taught to us by banks and lenders said the same thing.

I deeply believe that our housing sector IS the backbone of our society, the engine that drives our economy. Think of how many job transactions happen every time a home is sold – use the back of a napkin, and think about it.

Today, we aren’t hearing about the value of homeownership for the benefit of a stable society, and that really makes me burn.

We need to pay attention here – if we turn into a society that values temporary rather than deep, permanent roots, then we truly have become a disposable society.

Just as long as they don’t make you a Czar.

I mischaracterized Greg Mankiw as a neo-Keynesian in an earlier comment. He actually is a new Keynesian. You, Professor Krugman, are a neo-Keynesian, also known as an old Keynesian.

It’s all very clear now. I regret the error.

Paul –

Recipe for Recovery??

Shouldn’t the cooks (crooks) who created the recipe for recession be forced to figure that one out?

I have worked hard the last 30 years. Hard – but not apparently smart enough. Maybe an economics course would have helped – but which one, taught by who, with what theories emphasized?

My family and I live week to week, month to month. My kids are not assured anything, neither the money for a college education, nor a roof over their head when/if I get laid off… and for that matter neither am I.

My children are not better off than I was. I am not better off today then I was 30 years ago.

I know I am lucky. Many of my friends no longer have jobs.
And despite all I face – the dark (rose colored) glasses go on each day as I hope to scratch up some more of that legal tender.

Not a great way to live, but at least it is my choice. And I feel better than swapping my wife, or my life, on national TV – or my morals at the derivatives desk.

KrugmanforTreasurySec October 16, 2009 · 1:29 pm

Dear Mr. Krugman-

How can you flash this quote and blog blithely around it without directly addressing the central premise?

Tim Geitner runs out of gas after two talking points.
Surely you’re tempted…

Looks like I’ve stumbled into the Paul Krugman fan club today . . .

Indeed Prof. Krugman is hardly a “radical Keynesian”. If you want to see what REAL radical Keynesians (the preferred term is “post Keynesian”) think, then click on over to The Levy Economics Institute or the Economic Department at the University of Missouri – Kansas City.

//www.levy.org/

//neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/

The last New yorker issue was good on Econ stuff…even the page of depression Era cartoons. Go Reznick! & good on that.

Radical, schmadical. Whatever. Krugman should be the president’s chief adviser on finances–and healthcare.. What’s wrong with you, Obama? Don’t you WANT the country to recover?

“Questioning that notion of soundness isn’t being radical; it’s just being intellectually honest.”

Quite true. But it seems to me that you’ve undergone an evolution in your own thinking in the last fifteen years. My impression is that American New Keynesianism has become only a pale imitation of the old. Is keynesianism just a liquidity trap plus most of classical economics? If you’ve changed your mind about fundamental aspects of economic theory (general equilibrium?) making it explicit would be appreciated. Do you still fundamentally agree with these old papers of yours?

//web.mit.edu/krugman/www/vulgar.html
//web.mit.edu/krugman/www/evolute.html

An account of your own second-thoughts, if any, would be helpful to those of your readers who share your political perspectives, and would like new fleshed-out economic theories to support them. And the more explicit you are, the less trouble you put future biographers to trying to reconcile what may initially seem like contradictions. . . .

don’t be so hard on yourself Paul! haha. just kidding.

you could say that freshwater economists use “truthiness”
ha!