Even if we are "in the preliminary states of a very real debt crisis" -- a point which I am sure many economists disagree on and which I am in no position to evaluate, it would still be necessary to balance the current suffering (economic, psychological, health) of six million people who are 'unnecessarily' unemployed (compared to a 5% rate) with the possibility of a debt crisis and its effects.
The same people who are deathly afraid of hypothetical future inflation and a hypothetical future debt crisis and the effects of these things on the economy seem to be the same people who refuse to be afraid of a hypothetical climate crisis and its effects on the economy. (Not saying you are among them)
Seems like each has to weighed in terms of the current suffering that, in the first case, is being imposed, and in the second case, the near-future term suffering that would be imposed, and the potential suffering into the future, and the probability of such things happening, and our capacity to deal with the situation technologically and politically if it does happen in the future.
This is obviously a very difficult calculation to make. I don't know what a 'debt crisis' would entail in terms of suffering. Greece has a debt crisis, and things are not good there. But Japan has a debt crisis, and while its GDP may not be growing very robustly, they seem to live in a pretty damned good society -- excellent health care, excellent life expectancy, great transportation systems, technologically advanced, etc, etc. Who really cares that they are in a "debt crisis" beyond the economists?
I would be strongly inclined, unless there was a real consensus on the horrible effects of a possible 'debt crisis' some years hence (which I don't think there is), to concentrate on relieving ongoing suffering and pushing for economic growth NOW by getting people back to work, rather than worry about possible suffering in the future.
Part of your argument seems to be that nothing we could do would significantly effect economic conditions. Clearly that is an opinion which is in dispute. My guess is whatever could be done would not be as effective as those who are loudly advocating it say it would be, and would be a lot more effective than the zero effect those who claim that nothing can be done that would have any effect claim.
Obviously if nothing can be done then nothing can be done. But if something can be done, then it is cheaper to do it with interest rates at record lows than it is otherwise. And so we should take advantage of that.
I firmly believe something can be done. Potholes have been fixed in Berkeley because of ARRA; my driving experience is a lot more pleasurable and less jarring. Perhaps my tires have been spared. The Caldicott tunnel will have a fourth hole because of ARRA, resulting a large decrease in traffic congestion. These things have value, and they create jobs. Are they the most efficient use of the money? I have no idea. But there is value that results from the investment. The money just didn't get thrown into the Pacific.
The same people who are deathly afraid of hypothetical future inflation and a hypothetical future debt crisis and the effects of these things on the economy seem to be the same people who refuse to be afraid of a hypothetical climate crisis and its effects on the economy. (Not saying you are among them)
Seems like each has to weighed in terms of the current suffering that, in the first case, is being imposed, and in the second case, the near-future term suffering that would be imposed, and the potential suffering into the future, and the probability of such things happening, and our capacity to deal with the situation technologically and politically if it does happen in the future.
This is obviously a very difficult calculation to make. I don't know what a 'debt crisis' would entail in terms of suffering. Greece has a debt crisis, and things are not good there. But Japan has a debt crisis, and while its GDP may not be growing very robustly, they seem to live in a pretty damned good society -- excellent health care, excellent life expectancy, great transportation systems, technologically advanced, etc, etc. Who really cares that they are in a "debt crisis" beyond the economists?
I would be strongly inclined, unless there was a real consensus on the horrible effects of a possible 'debt crisis' some years hence (which I don't think there is), to concentrate on relieving ongoing suffering and pushing for economic growth NOW by getting people back to work, rather than worry about possible suffering in the future.
Part of your argument seems to be that nothing we could do would significantly effect economic conditions. Clearly that is an opinion which is in dispute. My guess is whatever could be done would not be as effective as those who are loudly advocating it say it would be, and would be a lot more effective than the zero effect those who claim that nothing can be done that would have any effect claim.
Obviously if nothing can be done then nothing can be done. But if something can be done, then it is cheaper to do it with interest rates at record lows than it is otherwise. And so we should take advantage of that.
I firmly believe something can be done. Potholes have been fixed in Berkeley because of ARRA; my driving experience is a lot more pleasurable and less jarring. Perhaps my tires have been spared. The Caldicott tunnel will have a fourth hole because of ARRA, resulting a large decrease in traffic congestion. These things have value, and they create jobs. Are they the most efficient use of the money? I have no idea. But there is value that results from the investment. The money just didn't get thrown into the Pacific.
Reply
Leave a comment