This was acutally published by the New York Times???????
Paul Krugman, a professor of Economics at Princeton, had a column published today in the NY Times which suggests that the recovery from our economic woes may take longer than either Senator Obama or Senator McCain wants to admit. Fine, I can agree with that. However he goes on to make the point that certain short recessions of the past were “caused” by the Federal Reserve tightening up interest rates in order to control inflation while the current downturn has been caused primarily by the housing bubble. In other words, the short recessions of 1990-91 and 2000 were caused by government intervention in the economy and were fixed by the Fed lowering interest rates while the current downturn is being caused by market forces and the Fed has been pretty much worthless in trying to soften the downturn or shorten it’s duration. He uses the metaphor of “pushing on a string” to make his point. OK, I can even agree with that to some degree.
Here is where I have to disagree with Professor Krugman; he then goes on to say that the way Senator Obama, should he become president,should move to end this downturn is to, ”…move quickly and forcefully to address America’s economic discontent. That means another stimulus plan, bigger, better, and more sustained than the one Congress passed earlier this year. It also means passing longer-term measures to reduce economic anxiety — above all, universal health care. ”
So let me see if I understand Professor Krugman’s position. This current economic downturn is driven by market forces beyond the federal government’s ability to ameliorate. In fact, the efforts by the Federal Reserve to try to dampen the effects of the downturn have been the equivalent of someone “pushing on a string”, in other words, ineffectual. The solution to this “economic crisis” is not less ineffectual government interference in the economy, which Professor Krugman admits has caused previous recessions, but more government intervention; including universal health care even though goverment intervention in this current downturn has been ineffectual.
So his position is that we have problem A and we tried solution B but solution B did not work and what we need is more solution B. That is abusrdist reasoning. As Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” If government intervention is ineffectual, more government intervention will still be ineffectual. I have a different solution, that we stop government intervention in the current economic downturn, allow those who made poor investments to fail, allow our economy to readjust and move on from a new economic baseline.
I really cannot believe that some editor at the NY Times didn’t see Professor Krugman’s article for the absurdist piece that it is.