New Economic Perspectives Sat 2010-07-24 16:30 EDT

Deficit Doves Meet the Deficit Owls

Paul Davidson, James K. Galbraith and Lord Robert Skidelsky

...We support the central objective of the letter -- a full employment policy now, based on sharply expanded public effort..apart from the effects of unemployment itself the United States does not in fact face a serious deficit problem over the next generation, and for this reason there is no "necessity [for] a program to cut the mid-and long-term deficit." On the contrary: If unemployment can be cured, the deficits we presently face will necessarily shrink. This is the universal experience of rapid economic growth: tax revenues rise, public welfare spending falls...The long-term deficit scare story plays into the hands of those who will argue, very soon, for cuts in Social Security as though these were necessary for economic reasons...We call on fellow economists to reconsider their casual willingness to concede to an unfounded hysteria over supposed long-term deficits, and to concentrate instead on solving the vast problems we presently face. It would be tragic if the Evans letter and similar efforts - whose basic purpose we strongly support - led to acquiescence in Social Security and Medicare cuts that impoverish America's elderly just a few years from now.

Deficit Doves Meet; Deficit Owls; New Economic Perspectives.

Wed 2010-07-21 10:34 EDT

Paul Debates Jamie and MMT | Corrente

Paul Krugman, well-known for his opposition to the austerity concerns of the deficit terrorists and his advocacy of additional Government stimulus to lower unemployment and end the recession, just ignited a paradigm conflict which promises to clarify for many, the issues dividing ``deficit doves'' like Paul, from economists who take a Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) approach to economics, which holds, among other things, that Government deficits and surpluses are not, in themselves important, and that Government spending has to be evaluated relative to its impact on public purposes...this conclusion and also Paul's first post both set up a ``straw man,'' because Jamie never claimed that deficits are never a problem, and even pointed to circumstances (conditions of full employment) where deficits could lead to inflation. Given the comments on Paul's first blog, including a very clear comment by Marshall Auerback, it should have been clear to him that he was distorting the position of both Jamie and MMT. But evidently, Paul didn't want to admit that...Jamie and the MMT economists are opposed to the very idea, the very framing of Government's role in the economy in a way that makes everything subject to deficits, national debts, and debt-to-GDP ratios. The position of MMT is that these numbers are just endogenous consequences of real economic activity including Government fiscal activity, and that it is this activity that ought to drive them and not the other way around...

Corrente; MMT; Paul Debates Jamie.