What do you think?
Rate this book
End This Depression Now!
A call-to-arms from Nobel Prize?winning economist and best-selling author Paul Krugman. The Great Recession is more than four years old, and counting. Yet, as Paul Krugman points out in this powerful volley, "Nations rich in resources, talent, and knowledge, all the ingredients for prosperity and a decent standard of living for all, remain in a state of intense pain." How bad have things gotten? How did we get stuck in what now can only be called a depression? And above all, how do we free ourselves? Krugman pursues these questions with his characteristic lucidity and insight. He has a powerful message for anyone who has suffered over these past four years: a quick, strong recovery is just one step away, if our leaders can find the "intellectual clarity and political will" to end this depression now.
259 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
About the author
Paul Krugman
339 books1,517 followersPaul Robin Krugman is an American economist, liberal columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 411 reviews
August 2, 2019
Have you noticed that "common-sense'" "kitchen table"' economics, when applied to the great world stage, almost always turns out to be wrong? That's because macro-economics is different from micro-economics: a difference in size becomes a difference in kind.
Paul Krugman's specialty is macro-ecomics. Perhaps that is one of the reasons he is often right about big issues--like depression and world-wide financial crises-- when so many others are wrong.
But the thing I like about Krugman, besides the fact that he is often right--right about Bush's mendacity about his first budget, right about the economy's inherent weaknesses--is that he presents complex economic arguments in clear and simple prose, clear enough that a right-brained, liberal arts type like myself can understand them.
Unfortunately--and this is not Krugman's fault--that doesn't mean I can remember his explanations adequately after a few days have passed, let alone comment upon them with any degree of insight. So I'll merely offer this crude summary: the economy is still in deep doo-doo, and likely to remain so for awhile--particularly because most of what everybody is doing is making it worse--and the things that will help us to get out of this mess are a little discrete Fed-engineered inflation plus STIMULUS, STUMLUS, STIMULUS!, starting with the re-hiring of all the public sector workers (teachers, nurses, firefighters) that the states have been laying off lately. (Plus of course the other stuff that I no longer remember or adequately understand.)
We know now what happened. We accomplished only a little of what Krugmam suggests, what with all those micro-eco mists yelling about a balanced budget, and the economy recovered, but slowly. And the poor and middle class benefited little from the gains.
I liked this book a lot. I suspect that, if your left-brain is more developed than mine is, you'll probably like it even more than I do.
August 6, 2012
This book is essentially an argument with America’s right. It makes clear what they are doing in forcing America and the world to follow the lunacy of neoliberal economic policies of austerity. It shows that such policies, which turn economics into a morality play, are the main reason for the continued devastation being wrought on the American and world economies. Although I seriously doubt anyone will have the political wherewithal to be able to implement the economic policies outlined here that would end this depression, that they are necessary makes what we are doing now the moral equivalent of standing by and watching as thousands drown or millions starve to death – oops, given that is exactly the kind of thing we do daily and have done daily for centuries, perhaps those aren’t the best examples to use. If only humans came with a little humanity…
Milton Freidman could begin the first edition of Capitalism and Freedom with a lament that his views had been marginalised by history. Twenty-five years later in the new preface to this book he could hardly contain his delight. He had witnessed a remarkable turn around, Keynesian economics had been more or less vanquished and his supply side version of monetarist radicalism had become received wisdom. Sure it might have been causing havoc all the way from Chile to Russia, but it was only hurting poor people in those places and they don’t count anyway.
The problem is that notions that capitalism never has a crisis due to a lack of demand ought to be self-evidently not the case. In fact, capitalism isn’t the wonderfully self-regulating, rational market, invisible hand paradise that it is often (nearly always?) presented as. In fact, capitalism, and this is for the first time in human history, is that paradoxical economic system were economic crises are due to over-abundance, rather than scarcity. Let me explain. In the past, say under slavery, a real crisis would occur when, for reasons of floods or droughts or some other natural or man-made calamity (think war and you’ll see why I said man-made), we just couldn’t produce enough food or other necessities to keep us all alive. A crisis then was a real crisis and invariably this was a crisis of scarcity. But under capitalism we very rarely have a crisis of scarcity. Where there is scarcity there is demand and when there is demand there is generally someone trying to supply that demand – or so the theory goes.
But when there is an economic shock under capitalism, a global financial crisis, say (not that one of those could ever happen) it is not that people don’t want to buy things, it is not that people do not have things they need to buy – it is rather that no one can make any money out of selling those things. And if you can’t make money from selling things there isn’t any point in making them in the first place. There is more stuff available than people are able to buy and so there is no point producing any more. So, we have a crisis of abundance. There is, in effect, too much stuff in the world (too much supply) and effectively not enough demand. One of the ways to fix this is for the government to step in and to do thing that will stimulate demand.
Now, Republican types will go ballistic right about now. Having been brought up on the kinds of nonsense pedalled under Reagan and Bush and Bush they will believe there is never a time when there is a lack of demand and that what is called for is more money to be taken from government (less taxes) and for more money to be given to the rich. The greatest misnomer of recent decades has been Reagan’s ‘trickle down economics’. A more accurate name would have been ‘gush up economics’. This book demolishes the excuses on the right for stopping fiscal stimulus. It calls for an increase, if we can even manage it, to inflation and for stimulus to be done in a way comparable to how it was done here in Australia – by directing money to the poor, AKA, those likely to spend the stimulus money and thereby actually stimulate the economy. It explains why our obsession with debt is misplaced and why printing lots of money right now simply will not debase the currency nor cause a repeat of the Weimar Republic. I admit I’ve been worried about the whole inflation bogey man for some time – especially given the quantitative easing by the American Fed seemed to be adding incomprehensibly large amounts of money into the economy (something I mentioned on one of Whitaker’s reviews). I can now say my mind has been completely changed on this and much more money needs to be printed and pumped into the American economy immediately.
What Klugman is seeking to do here is worthy, noble and clearly urgently needed. And equally, it is doomed to failure. Not for any of the reasons he mentions in his book – but because I think he has quite misread the political situation that is emerging in the world. He assumes that given the economic truth of his arguments these will, eventually and possibly after painful argument, win out in the end. Truth is meant to do that, right? Except, that would only work on the assumption that the right of politics actually cares about any of this. But any reasonable look at the right in the US or in the UK would have to conclude that they don’t care about any of the effects of their economic policies at all.
They don’t mind that the economy has run aground. They don’t mind that there is massive unemployment and social dislocation. All they care about is that they keep the lion’s share. And if they have to destroy democracy to keep what they already have, so be it. Watching the United States become ungovernable is both breathtaking and tragic – but I expect it to be a process that will continue and it is not just because certain white people don’t like the fact there is a black President. Politics everywhere in the ‘free’ world has become so alienating for people that they no longer watch on in despair, as I still do, but rather they simply don’t watch at all. Instead, they prefer to watch rich and beautiful young people running about and having gold medals placed around their necks while saluting their national flags and mouthing the words to some national anthem or other. Do you think the ‘rich people’ jibe is too strong about our glorious ‘people’s Olympics’ and hero athletes? read this and weep then - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...
We live in a world where the belief that unemployment is a kind of holiday people occasionally take when they get tired of working is standard economic theory – rather than, say, that unemployment is a crime against humanity and a gross structural deficiency in our market based economy. This kind of anti-logic is unspeakably insulting – insulting to the unemployed and insulting to everyone’s intelligence. To imply that up to 25% of the populations of many European countries are currently unemployed due to choices of their own laziness would be amusing if it wasn’t so disgracefully self-serving in the interests of the mega-rich who were more than happy to take these people's tax dollars to support their banks.
As this book makes abundantly clear that there are simple things we can do right now to end this depression and to thereby improve the lot of millions and millions of our fellow humans, and of most of ourselves. That we choose not to do these things says infinitely more about us than it does about them. But nothing will be done until we can somehow reclaim our democracy. I'm Irish and so a natural pessimist - I won't be holding my breath.
Milton Freidman could begin the first edition of Capitalism and Freedom with a lament that his views had been marginalised by history. Twenty-five years later in the new preface to this book he could hardly contain his delight. He had witnessed a remarkable turn around, Keynesian economics had been more or less vanquished and his supply side version of monetarist radicalism had become received wisdom. Sure it might have been causing havoc all the way from Chile to Russia, but it was only hurting poor people in those places and they don’t count anyway.
The problem is that notions that capitalism never has a crisis due to a lack of demand ought to be self-evidently not the case. In fact, capitalism isn’t the wonderfully self-regulating, rational market, invisible hand paradise that it is often (nearly always?) presented as. In fact, capitalism, and this is for the first time in human history, is that paradoxical economic system were economic crises are due to over-abundance, rather than scarcity. Let me explain. In the past, say under slavery, a real crisis would occur when, for reasons of floods or droughts or some other natural or man-made calamity (think war and you’ll see why I said man-made), we just couldn’t produce enough food or other necessities to keep us all alive. A crisis then was a real crisis and invariably this was a crisis of scarcity. But under capitalism we very rarely have a crisis of scarcity. Where there is scarcity there is demand and when there is demand there is generally someone trying to supply that demand – or so the theory goes.
But when there is an economic shock under capitalism, a global financial crisis, say (not that one of those could ever happen) it is not that people don’t want to buy things, it is not that people do not have things they need to buy – it is rather that no one can make any money out of selling those things. And if you can’t make money from selling things there isn’t any point in making them in the first place. There is more stuff available than people are able to buy and so there is no point producing any more. So, we have a crisis of abundance. There is, in effect, too much stuff in the world (too much supply) and effectively not enough demand. One of the ways to fix this is for the government to step in and to do thing that will stimulate demand.
Now, Republican types will go ballistic right about now. Having been brought up on the kinds of nonsense pedalled under Reagan and Bush and Bush they will believe there is never a time when there is a lack of demand and that what is called for is more money to be taken from government (less taxes) and for more money to be given to the rich. The greatest misnomer of recent decades has been Reagan’s ‘trickle down economics’. A more accurate name would have been ‘gush up economics’. This book demolishes the excuses on the right for stopping fiscal stimulus. It calls for an increase, if we can even manage it, to inflation and for stimulus to be done in a way comparable to how it was done here in Australia – by directing money to the poor, AKA, those likely to spend the stimulus money and thereby actually stimulate the economy. It explains why our obsession with debt is misplaced and why printing lots of money right now simply will not debase the currency nor cause a repeat of the Weimar Republic. I admit I’ve been worried about the whole inflation bogey man for some time – especially given the quantitative easing by the American Fed seemed to be adding incomprehensibly large amounts of money into the economy (something I mentioned on one of Whitaker’s reviews). I can now say my mind has been completely changed on this and much more money needs to be printed and pumped into the American economy immediately.
What Klugman is seeking to do here is worthy, noble and clearly urgently needed. And equally, it is doomed to failure. Not for any of the reasons he mentions in his book – but because I think he has quite misread the political situation that is emerging in the world. He assumes that given the economic truth of his arguments these will, eventually and possibly after painful argument, win out in the end. Truth is meant to do that, right? Except, that would only work on the assumption that the right of politics actually cares about any of this. But any reasonable look at the right in the US or in the UK would have to conclude that they don’t care about any of the effects of their economic policies at all.
They don’t mind that the economy has run aground. They don’t mind that there is massive unemployment and social dislocation. All they care about is that they keep the lion’s share. And if they have to destroy democracy to keep what they already have, so be it. Watching the United States become ungovernable is both breathtaking and tragic – but I expect it to be a process that will continue and it is not just because certain white people don’t like the fact there is a black President. Politics everywhere in the ‘free’ world has become so alienating for people that they no longer watch on in despair, as I still do, but rather they simply don’t watch at all. Instead, they prefer to watch rich and beautiful young people running about and having gold medals placed around their necks while saluting their national flags and mouthing the words to some national anthem or other. Do you think the ‘rich people’ jibe is too strong about our glorious ‘people’s Olympics’ and hero athletes? read this and weep then - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...
We live in a world where the belief that unemployment is a kind of holiday people occasionally take when they get tired of working is standard economic theory – rather than, say, that unemployment is a crime against humanity and a gross structural deficiency in our market based economy. This kind of anti-logic is unspeakably insulting – insulting to the unemployed and insulting to everyone’s intelligence. To imply that up to 25% of the populations of many European countries are currently unemployed due to choices of their own laziness would be amusing if it wasn’t so disgracefully self-serving in the interests of the mega-rich who were more than happy to take these people's tax dollars to support their banks.
As this book makes abundantly clear that there are simple things we can do right now to end this depression and to thereby improve the lot of millions and millions of our fellow humans, and of most of ourselves. That we choose not to do these things says infinitely more about us than it does about them. But nothing will be done until we can somehow reclaim our democracy. I'm Irish and so a natural pessimist - I won't be holding my breath.
July 1, 2012
Is what we are living through in the USA at present (2012) a recession, or something worse? And if so what can be done about it? In his latest outstanding book, Paul Krugman argues persuasively that we are indeed in another depression. Not as horrible as the one labeled “Great” but bad enough. He examines how we got to this state, what might be done to get the nation out of this depression, and considers the difficulties entailed with getting that done.
I cannot promise that after reading this book, the world of economics will become entirely clear, but you will definitely have a better big-picture handle on where we stand, economically, what should be considered to alleviate the problem, where resistance to sanity resides and why. You will learn about liquidity traps, Minsky moments, repos (nothing to do, unfortunately, with one of my favorite films, Repo Man), expenditure cascades, bond vigilantes and why it sucks to be on the euro when your economy is in the crapper. Krugman writes for a general audience, so don’t be intimidated by this jolt of jargon. He makes it all very understandable. Likewise the few charts that are included here are pretty simple, clear and illustrative. No arcane, Greek-symbol math to contend with.
Krugman is econ-Moses, trying his best to lead us all out of this mindless economic desert and into the promised land of prosperity. (Sorry, no burning Bushes atop that mountain) But those with a monopoly on golden calves seem happy to keep things as they are, and even some who might be able to tear themselves away from the odd Mammon-worship-fest, can’t handle admitting that they led us into this godforsaken land in the first place, and so refuse not only to ask for directions, but even to listen when they are offered. I picture the classic middle-schooler with hands over his ear, eyes tightly shut and yelling LALALALALALALALALA to drown out any incoming responsibility or truth.
Bottom line is that we are suffering from a crisis of low demand. Businesses are sitting on their assets. Yet, in order to get some forward momentum some actor needs to get out there and spend. The only entity capable of doing this is the federal government. The impact will be worth it, as investment now, whether in current employment or in rebuilding/improving infrastructure, will yield benefits long beyond the paychecks that will be generated in the short term. Krugman does the math, explains it all, and offers recommendations for how we can fix it.
However depressing the state of our economy might be, Krugman offers a map to get us to the Promised Land, if only leaders who count can get their heads out of the sand.
Links
A very informative Wall Street Journal article on Minsky and his moment
I cannot promise that after reading this book, the world of economics will become entirely clear, but you will definitely have a better big-picture handle on where we stand, economically, what should be considered to alleviate the problem, where resistance to sanity resides and why. You will learn about liquidity traps, Minsky moments, repos (nothing to do, unfortunately, with one of my favorite films, Repo Man), expenditure cascades, bond vigilantes and why it sucks to be on the euro when your economy is in the crapper. Krugman writes for a general audience, so don’t be intimidated by this jolt of jargon. He makes it all very understandable. Likewise the few charts that are included here are pretty simple, clear and illustrative. No arcane, Greek-symbol math to contend with.
Krugman is econ-Moses, trying his best to lead us all out of this mindless economic desert and into the promised land of prosperity. (Sorry, no burning Bushes atop that mountain) But those with a monopoly on golden calves seem happy to keep things as they are, and even some who might be able to tear themselves away from the odd Mammon-worship-fest, can’t handle admitting that they led us into this godforsaken land in the first place, and so refuse not only to ask for directions, but even to listen when they are offered. I picture the classic middle-schooler with hands over his ear, eyes tightly shut and yelling LALALALALALALALALA to drown out any incoming responsibility or truth.
Bottom line is that we are suffering from a crisis of low demand. Businesses are sitting on their assets. Yet, in order to get some forward momentum some actor needs to get out there and spend. The only entity capable of doing this is the federal government. The impact will be worth it, as investment now, whether in current employment or in rebuilding/improving infrastructure, will yield benefits long beyond the paychecks that will be generated in the short term. Krugman does the math, explains it all, and offers recommendations for how we can fix it.
However depressing the state of our economy might be, Krugman offers a map to get us to the Promised Land, if only leaders who count can get their heads out of the sand.
Links
A very informative Wall Street Journal article on Minsky and his moment
October 22, 2012
I recently read Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman's new book, End This Depression Now! It offers a relatively simple solution to alleviate the financial crisis that we're currently in. Before offering this solution however, he provides a fairly concise, yet comprehensive overview of economic theory (excellent for those of us that spent Macroeconomics 101 in a hangover induced stupor) and a complete history of how we came to this point. (Spoiler alert!) Once he detailed how the economy could be turned around with increased stimulus and mortgage debt forgiveness, I was convinced he was correct, not because that's what I always believed, or it matched my political leanings, but because he backed it up with extensive research, facts and reason.
Once I began to ponder this solution, I wondered, based on what I'd read, why anyone wouldn't agree with this solution...I wanted to hear the opposing view, but I wasn't quite sure what to read. Supposedly modern supply-side economics was born during a lunch between economist Arthur Laffer, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, where Laffer famously drew a bell curve on a napkin, demonstrating that as taxes were raised beyond a certain point, tax revenues actually fell, as people were discouraged from working. Well I eagerly read the napkin, and still found myself feeling unfulfilled. I know the right's solution is to lower taxes and remove more regulation, but taxes haven't been this low since before the Great Depression. It seemed counter-intuitive...beyond reason really. And doing further reading on the Laffer Curve, by almost all estimates, our taxes were already below the point of optimum revenue. As far as regulation, it seems very apparent that the removal of regulations were the catalyst of this financial crisis. The dismantling of the Glass-Steagal Act, which had been in place since 1933, most certainly opened the door for the melt-down of the financial sector. Former Citigroup CEO, who was instrumental in lobbying for Glass-Steagal's repeal, has admitted that it was a mistake. In a letter to the NY Times, Reed wrote, "We learn from our mistakes. When you're running a company, you do what you think is right for the stockholders. Right now I'm looking at this as a citizen."
Where to now?
I recalled an argument I was having with someone about supply-side economics, where he countered, "You need to read Ayn Rand." It seemed odd that he'd recommend fiction to back up his argument, as if you were discussing how to reduce crime and said, have you read Superman comics? But I've also heard many of the great conservative thinkers sing her praise (notably, Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan), so I ordered Atlas Shrugged.
At this writing, I am only about half way through (I was horrified to find that it's 1,200 pages.) The writing is clumsy (in the kind of way a James Bond villain outlines his whole evil plan in a long monologue, as a laser heads towards 007's nuts.) The characters are cartoonish in their exaggerated stereotypes...they're either corrupt and incompetent pencil pushers, clownish academics, or heroic highly reasoning builders of things without compassion. That being said; I'm quite enjoying it and can't put it down. Rand is a master storyteller.
Her message seems quite simple and straightforward:
Corruption, incompetence, and compassion = bad.
Creating things, selfishness, honesty and reason = good.
I think people of almost any political persuasion would agree with her on most of this, with the exception of compassion and selfishness (there'd probably be a split on those.) In this novel, government is the tool of corruption, not the cause of it. The incompetent industrialists are the real villains. So I guess the conservative take away is, if we can minimize the size of government, we can minimize corruption. A classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I honestly don't think Rand would have anything to do with today's Republican party. The only things they seem to agree with her on is that compassion is bad and selfishness is good. Not that she'd have anything to do with the Democratic party (the party formally known as the Republican party.)
It's been said that the simple solution is usually the best solution. But a simple solution isn't effective and elegant because it is easily arrived at or comprehended, but because it's been carefully thought out and researched.
Once I began to ponder this solution, I wondered, based on what I'd read, why anyone wouldn't agree with this solution...I wanted to hear the opposing view, but I wasn't quite sure what to read. Supposedly modern supply-side economics was born during a lunch between economist Arthur Laffer, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, where Laffer famously drew a bell curve on a napkin, demonstrating that as taxes were raised beyond a certain point, tax revenues actually fell, as people were discouraged from working. Well I eagerly read the napkin, and still found myself feeling unfulfilled. I know the right's solution is to lower taxes and remove more regulation, but taxes haven't been this low since before the Great Depression. It seemed counter-intuitive...beyond reason really. And doing further reading on the Laffer Curve, by almost all estimates, our taxes were already below the point of optimum revenue. As far as regulation, it seems very apparent that the removal of regulations were the catalyst of this financial crisis. The dismantling of the Glass-Steagal Act, which had been in place since 1933, most certainly opened the door for the melt-down of the financial sector. Former Citigroup CEO, who was instrumental in lobbying for Glass-Steagal's repeal, has admitted that it was a mistake. In a letter to the NY Times, Reed wrote, "We learn from our mistakes. When you're running a company, you do what you think is right for the stockholders. Right now I'm looking at this as a citizen."
Where to now?
I recalled an argument I was having with someone about supply-side economics, where he countered, "You need to read Ayn Rand." It seemed odd that he'd recommend fiction to back up his argument, as if you were discussing how to reduce crime and said, have you read Superman comics? But I've also heard many of the great conservative thinkers sing her praise (notably, Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan), so I ordered Atlas Shrugged.
At this writing, I am only about half way through (I was horrified to find that it's 1,200 pages.) The writing is clumsy (in the kind of way a James Bond villain outlines his whole evil plan in a long monologue, as a laser heads towards 007's nuts.) The characters are cartoonish in their exaggerated stereotypes...they're either corrupt and incompetent pencil pushers, clownish academics, or heroic highly reasoning builders of things without compassion. That being said; I'm quite enjoying it and can't put it down. Rand is a master storyteller.
Her message seems quite simple and straightforward:
Corruption, incompetence, and compassion = bad.
Creating things, selfishness, honesty and reason = good.
I think people of almost any political persuasion would agree with her on most of this, with the exception of compassion and selfishness (there'd probably be a split on those.) In this novel, government is the tool of corruption, not the cause of it. The incompetent industrialists are the real villains. So I guess the conservative take away is, if we can minimize the size of government, we can minimize corruption. A classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I honestly don't think Rand would have anything to do with today's Republican party. The only things they seem to agree with her on is that compassion is bad and selfishness is good. Not that she'd have anything to do with the Democratic party (the party formally known as the Republican party.)
It's been said that the simple solution is usually the best solution. But a simple solution isn't effective and elegant because it is easily arrived at or comprehended, but because it's been carefully thought out and researched.
April 2, 2016
Paul Krugman has won a Nobel Prize in economics. Reading this book, which is a plea for governments to pour money into their economies to generate spending, I became convinced that this man may be an expert at accounting and high finance but knows little about world geopolitics. I'm no economist; I'm a small business owner in Ireland. A canary in a coal mine in a marginal economy. So I apologise for sounding in any way disrespectful.
Krugman states that he started to see problems developing in the American economy in 2003. I noticed that September twelfth 2001 was considered by some major American firms to be a good day to bury bad news. Even more of them buried their bad news on September thirteenth 2001. At that point I knew the American economy was sliding to a crash, which had nothing to do with the events of September eleventh. Since major companies in Ireland, from Waterford Glass to Philips, were already sending manufacturing to Eastern Europe or China and computer work to India, where labour, rent and electricity were cheaper, I knew the boom was essentially over. I made arrangements to repay part of my mortgage early, clear credit cards and take on no debts. From then on, I was telling pollsters that the economy had already crashed, but was being held up by house prices. This meant that householders were no better off, because what they gained in higher wages they spent on higher mortgages. The Irish government was raking in money from every house built. Polls continued to radiate confidence. Then the banks crashed.
Krugman makes many visits to the 1930s and sees how the Depression was lifted by war spending. He wants the American government to do this again, saying that it has increased spending on social supports, food and medical aid for out of work people, but not on schemes that will give them jobs or improve transport. He wants a return to a profitable spending consumer driven economy, saying that when people have money they borrow and spend. Without money they practise thrift.
The economist doesn't seem to understand that manufacturing has shifted to Asia, mainly China, where clothes are put on hangers before shipping to America because this means Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay Americans to do it. In China, coal mines and power plants are next door to manufacturing and nobody in charge cares about workers' lungs or polluted rivers. In China, health and safety standards as we know them do not exist or are ignored. This is why Rare Earth Elements which make the components of smartphones, jet engines and any other appliance that has been getting lighter and smarter, are almost all mined and refined - filthily - in China.
Consumption has screeched to a halt. Most consumers now understand the disastrous consequences of industrial and domestic pollution and waste. Even those who don't want to know about the already-present climate change can see contaminated water tables, mountains of tide-borne garbage and plumes of escaping methane. And if your house is in danger of foreclosure, haven't you learnt a lesson about how many handbags you need?
Krugman barely glances at small businesses, except to say that they should take out loans to boost the economy. Small businesses are the first to suffer from a crash and the first to boost the economy out of it. A staff member at a local newspaper told me shortly after the crash that he could no longer sell advertising. This staff person had already taken three pay cuts, each of ten percent. I said, people have no jobs. They are now time rich and cash poor. They can walk their own dogs, tend their own garden, iron their own clothes, mind their own children. They can't eat out.
Krugman admits that rich people are becoming richer while the middle class are shrinking down to the poorer end of the scale. Yet he likes rich people because they spend. Actually, they don't. The newly rich hedge fund managers he mentions, buying mansions to tear them down and build bigger mansions, may be so insecure as to splurge. But the really rich do not have money by spending it. They buy property and resources. Property to rent and to push up the cost of property for home and business owners. Resources which they corner, like land, mines, water, forests, industries so that poorer people are pushed off and cannot make a living. In 2016 more than 50% of the world's wealth is held by one percent of the world's people. Rich people cling to money which they will never need, buying four homes around the world so as to avoid being domiciled anywhere long enough to pay tax, leaving entire mansions and apartment blocks empty as a hedge against the end of oil. Rich people spend on luxury goods which gives money back to other rich people who get the goods made by immigrant factory workers. They employ people as cheaply as possible, because they need a distance to reassure themselves that they are rich and stop others getting to be rich.
Krugman bemoans that in America printing money is done by the state purchasing bank bonds to give banks cash, but then banks still do not lend as interest rates are low. In Britain, their quantitative easing which he doesn't mention, is done by paying civil servants with imaginary money, topping up their bank accounts with wages that have no gold behind them. Getting it to people who will spend in other words. A lot of this goes straight to banks of course in mortgages, credit card payments, school fees when many schools and colleges have taken out major loans for renovations so are essentially owned by banks. But it's an alternative that Krugman doesn't consider.
Krugman doesn't say what infrastructure he would recommend - in a world of rising seas, governments are having to consider sea barriers and shore evacuations. Why renovate a city you may have to abandon? Krugman also doesn't realise that everyone now hates the banks, so they are not taking out loans. As I write the European Central Bank has reduced its base interest rate to zero.
I recommend these books to anyone interested in the new reality of the world's economy. Most of them are written by journalists.
The Price Of Thirst
The People's Republic of Chemicals
Meltdown In Tibet
Money Logging
Disaster Capitalism
The Disaster Profiteers
Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere
This Changes Everything
No Logo
The Elements Of Power
Retreat From A Rising Sea
Green Capital
What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?
Nickel And Dimed
Glaciers: The Politics of Ice
Future Arctic
The Bankers
Krugman states that he started to see problems developing in the American economy in 2003. I noticed that September twelfth 2001 was considered by some major American firms to be a good day to bury bad news. Even more of them buried their bad news on September thirteenth 2001. At that point I knew the American economy was sliding to a crash, which had nothing to do with the events of September eleventh. Since major companies in Ireland, from Waterford Glass to Philips, were already sending manufacturing to Eastern Europe or China and computer work to India, where labour, rent and electricity were cheaper, I knew the boom was essentially over. I made arrangements to repay part of my mortgage early, clear credit cards and take on no debts. From then on, I was telling pollsters that the economy had already crashed, but was being held up by house prices. This meant that householders were no better off, because what they gained in higher wages they spent on higher mortgages. The Irish government was raking in money from every house built. Polls continued to radiate confidence. Then the banks crashed.
Krugman makes many visits to the 1930s and sees how the Depression was lifted by war spending. He wants the American government to do this again, saying that it has increased spending on social supports, food and medical aid for out of work people, but not on schemes that will give them jobs or improve transport. He wants a return to a profitable spending consumer driven economy, saying that when people have money they borrow and spend. Without money they practise thrift.
The economist doesn't seem to understand that manufacturing has shifted to Asia, mainly China, where clothes are put on hangers before shipping to America because this means Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay Americans to do it. In China, coal mines and power plants are next door to manufacturing and nobody in charge cares about workers' lungs or polluted rivers. In China, health and safety standards as we know them do not exist or are ignored. This is why Rare Earth Elements which make the components of smartphones, jet engines and any other appliance that has been getting lighter and smarter, are almost all mined and refined - filthily - in China.
Consumption has screeched to a halt. Most consumers now understand the disastrous consequences of industrial and domestic pollution and waste. Even those who don't want to know about the already-present climate change can see contaminated water tables, mountains of tide-borne garbage and plumes of escaping methane. And if your house is in danger of foreclosure, haven't you learnt a lesson about how many handbags you need?
Krugman barely glances at small businesses, except to say that they should take out loans to boost the economy. Small businesses are the first to suffer from a crash and the first to boost the economy out of it. A staff member at a local newspaper told me shortly after the crash that he could no longer sell advertising. This staff person had already taken three pay cuts, each of ten percent. I said, people have no jobs. They are now time rich and cash poor. They can walk their own dogs, tend their own garden, iron their own clothes, mind their own children. They can't eat out.
Krugman admits that rich people are becoming richer while the middle class are shrinking down to the poorer end of the scale. Yet he likes rich people because they spend. Actually, they don't. The newly rich hedge fund managers he mentions, buying mansions to tear them down and build bigger mansions, may be so insecure as to splurge. But the really rich do not have money by spending it. They buy property and resources. Property to rent and to push up the cost of property for home and business owners. Resources which they corner, like land, mines, water, forests, industries so that poorer people are pushed off and cannot make a living. In 2016 more than 50% of the world's wealth is held by one percent of the world's people. Rich people cling to money which they will never need, buying four homes around the world so as to avoid being domiciled anywhere long enough to pay tax, leaving entire mansions and apartment blocks empty as a hedge against the end of oil. Rich people spend on luxury goods which gives money back to other rich people who get the goods made by immigrant factory workers. They employ people as cheaply as possible, because they need a distance to reassure themselves that they are rich and stop others getting to be rich.
Krugman bemoans that in America printing money is done by the state purchasing bank bonds to give banks cash, but then banks still do not lend as interest rates are low. In Britain, their quantitative easing which he doesn't mention, is done by paying civil servants with imaginary money, topping up their bank accounts with wages that have no gold behind them. Getting it to people who will spend in other words. A lot of this goes straight to banks of course in mortgages, credit card payments, school fees when many schools and colleges have taken out major loans for renovations so are essentially owned by banks. But it's an alternative that Krugman doesn't consider.
Krugman doesn't say what infrastructure he would recommend - in a world of rising seas, governments are having to consider sea barriers and shore evacuations. Why renovate a city you may have to abandon? Krugman also doesn't realise that everyone now hates the banks, so they are not taking out loans. As I write the European Central Bank has reduced its base interest rate to zero.
I recommend these books to anyone interested in the new reality of the world's economy. Most of them are written by journalists.
The Price Of Thirst
The People's Republic of Chemicals
Meltdown In Tibet
Money Logging
Disaster Capitalism
The Disaster Profiteers
Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere
This Changes Everything
No Logo
The Elements Of Power
Retreat From A Rising Sea
Green Capital
What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?
Nickel And Dimed
Glaciers: The Politics of Ice
Future Arctic
The Bankers
March 24, 2013
What if we already knew what works to end the depression and return the world to a state of prosperity?
For Nobel Prize-winner in economics, Paul Krguman, the answer to our current economic problems lies in the works of economists who thought their way through the Great Depression. The economists he has in mind include John Maynard Keynes, Irving Fisher and Hyman Minsky.
Krugman starts with how bad things are now, considers the appropriate Depression Economics – his term for learning economists who have the requisite experience – and finishes with what it will take to fix the economy and restore prosperity.
This book is well-written and well-researched, and his premise makes sense: look to economists who succeeded in comparable economic circumstances with the aim of modelling what worked. But he believes in economic growth, as measured by GDP, for its own sake. Andrew Simms in Cancel the Apocalypse: The New Path to Prosperity argues persuasively that GDP is an inaccurate measure of economic growth, and that pursuit of growth without reason is dangerous for the economy and society. A sustainable return to prosperity lies elsewhere.
Despite this, anyone affected by the current economic situation should read this book to gain better understanding of the context.
For Nobel Prize-winner in economics, Paul Krguman, the answer to our current economic problems lies in the works of economists who thought their way through the Great Depression. The economists he has in mind include John Maynard Keynes, Irving Fisher and Hyman Minsky.
Krugman starts with how bad things are now, considers the appropriate Depression Economics – his term for learning economists who have the requisite experience – and finishes with what it will take to fix the economy and restore prosperity.
This book is well-written and well-researched, and his premise makes sense: look to economists who succeeded in comparable economic circumstances with the aim of modelling what worked. But he believes in economic growth, as measured by GDP, for its own sake. Andrew Simms in Cancel the Apocalypse: The New Path to Prosperity argues persuasively that GDP is an inaccurate measure of economic growth, and that pursuit of growth without reason is dangerous for the economy and society. A sustainable return to prosperity lies elsewhere.
Despite this, anyone affected by the current economic situation should read this book to gain better understanding of the context.
September 10, 2014
This book is suck,I think it’s really useless.It can’t help me figure my personal problems out,it can’t relax me,and I’m really regret that I spent so much time and money on this book.I totally can’t stand why so much people said this book is great,just rubbish.It’s just for someone who has so much time and energy and who lose his mind.I am very mad with this book.My friend told me this book,and now I’m break up with her.
June 13, 2012
End This Depression is an objective, positive yet realistic book about how America (and the rest of the struggling world) can work to end the recession that has lasted since 2008.
Krugman is non-partisan, and doesn't hesitate to pull punches where punches are due in discussing political and 'expert' opinion on economics and the recession.
Where End This Depression is refreshing is the novel is very much focussed on solving the problem, something which appears to be missing from the publishing environment on this subject (except the typical polemics - which generally propose solutions of vote for the right people and everything will be fixed.)
My only criticism (which is perhaps a slight on myself) is that I didn't find End This Depression particularly accessible. In truth I struggle with most economic analysis, and when reading non-fiction I do judge on how well non-experts will follow them. Thats just my response though.
Otherwise Krugman is much required reading for any who are sick of the fear-mongering and rhetoric on the economy and are interested in some real solutions.
Krugman is non-partisan, and doesn't hesitate to pull punches where punches are due in discussing political and 'expert' opinion on economics and the recession.
Where End This Depression is refreshing is the novel is very much focussed on solving the problem, something which appears to be missing from the publishing environment on this subject (except the typical polemics - which generally propose solutions of vote for the right people and everything will be fixed.)
My only criticism (which is perhaps a slight on myself) is that I didn't find End This Depression particularly accessible. In truth I struggle with most economic analysis, and when reading non-fiction I do judge on how well non-experts will follow them. Thats just my response though.
Otherwise Krugman is much required reading for any who are sick of the fear-mongering and rhetoric on the economy and are interested in some real solutions.
March 29, 2020
ماذا يعني الكساد و الركود الاقتصادي وكيف يمكننا ان نستفيد من الاحداث التاريخية الاقتصادية السابقة ؟ بول كروجمان في كتابه هذا يحاول ان يجيب على هذه الاسئلة و يحاول ان يخلص صورة افضل حول الموقف الاقتصادي والاجتماعي استنادا الى السوق الامريكية و يتحدث عن الامور التي يجب مراعاتها للتخفيف من حالات الكساد الاقتصادي , قراءة هذا الكتاب قد تقدم لك ما يكفي من المعلومات لكي تفهم المديونية العامة و اهمية الديون والقروض و معنى الناتج المحلي و الكثير من المفاهيم الاقتصادية بصورة سلسلة و بسيطة و مباشرة و هذا الكتاب قادر على ان ينقلك الى خضم اللعبة الاقتصادية بين البنوك المركزية والبنوك التجارية والافراد و كيف يؤثر كل منها على الاخر و يفسر لك لماذا دول العالم الاول تملك مديونيات ضخمة و هل توثر تلك المديونيات عليها ام لا , ويحاول الكاتب بصورة عامة ان يقدم نفسه كصانع حلول و صاحب خطط للوصول إلى ملاذ الامان الاقتصادي في الولايات المتحدة الامريكية , ومهما يكن و على الرغم من ان الكتاب يبدو وانه يتحدث عن الاقتصاد الامريكي فقط الا انه غني جداً بالمعلومات و يتوجب على الجميع قراءته , كتاب مميز جداً من هندواي و تقيمي له 5/5
.
مقتطفات من كتاب أنْهوا هذا الكساد الآن بول كروجمان
--------------------
الكثير من الأشخاص المهمين — من ساسة ومسئولين حكوميين والشريحة الأكبر من الكتاب والمتحدثين المعبرين عن الأعراف المتبعة — اختاروا، لمختلف الأسباب، ��ن يتناسوا الدروس المستفادة من التاريخ والاستنتاجات التي توصلتْ إليها التحليلات الاقتصادية على مدى أجيال عدة، ليستعيضوا عن تلك المعرفة التي توصلْنا إليها بشق الأنفس بأحكام مسبقة تتفق مع تحيزاتهم الأيديولوجية والسياسية
------------------------------
تخبرنا أبحاث السعادة أن المال لا يظل بالغ الأهمية بمجرد أن تصل إلى مرحلة القدرة على تحمل تكاليف ضرورات الحياة. صحيح أن عائد الثراء ليس صفرا بالمعنى الحرفي للكلمة؛ فبصفة عامة، مواطنو البلدان الغنية أكثر شعورا بالرضا عن حياتهم من مواطني الدول الأقل ثراء، فضلا عن ذلك فإن كوْنك أكثر ثراء أو أكثر فقرا ممن تقارن نفسك بهم قض��ة مهمة في حد ذاتها، ولهذا يمكن أن يكون لانعدام المساواة الهائل تأثير مدمر على المجتمع؛ لكن في نهاية المطاف، المال أقل أهمية مما يظن أنصار المادية البحتة والعديد من الاقتصاديين
---------------------------------
فالأشخاص الذين يرغبون في العمل ولا يجدون وظيفة يعانون أشد المعاناة؛ ليس فقط من جراء انعدام الدخْل، ولكن أيضا بسبب شعورهم بتضاؤل قيمتهم الذاتية،
------------------------------------
أي شخص مستعد للعمل وجاد في ذلك، سوف يجد وظيفة بكل تأكيد. لكن لا تذهب إلى من يقول لك هذا؛ لأنه لا يملك وظيفة يقدمها لك، ولا يعرف أحدا يمكن أن يدلك على وظيفة شاغرة؛ وهذا هو السبب تحديدا في أنه يعطيك هذه النصيحة الطيبة، النابعة من المحبة الأخوية، التي تظهر مدى قصور معرفته بالعالم
----------------------
في أبريل ٢٠١١ ، أعلنتْ ماكدونالدز عن ٥٠ ألف فرصة عمل جديدة، وتقدم لها نحو مليون شخص.
-------------------------
في أوقات الرخاء تكون البطالة في الغالب حالة مؤقتة؛ ففي أوقات الرخاء، يكون ثمة شبه توافق بين عدد الباحثين عن عمل وعدد فرص العمل؛ ونتيجة لذلك يعثر أكثر الباحثين عن عمل على وظيفة بسرعة إلى حد كبير. فمن بين عدد السبعة ملايين أمريكي العاطلين عن العمل قبل الأزمة، ظل أقل من الخمس عاطلا لمدة تصل إلى ستة أشهر، وظل أقل من العشْر عاطلا عن العمل لمدة عام أو أكثر
------------------
تخلف البطالة الطويلة الأجل جرحا غائرا في معنويات العاملين في أي مكان، وفي الولايات المتحدة — حيث شبكة الأمان الاجتماعي أضعف من مثيلاتها في أي دولة متقدمة أخرى — يمكن للبطالة أن تتحول بسهولة إلى كابوس؛ فغالبا ما يعني فقْد الوظيفة خسارة التأمين الصحي. وتستنفد إعانات البطالة، التي لا تتجاوز عادة نحو ثلث الدخل - المفقود في كل الأحوال. وعلى مدار ٢٠١٠-٢٠١١ ، حدث انخفاض طفيف في معدلات البطالة الرسمية، إلا أن عدد الأمريكيين العاطلين عن العمل الذين لا يتلقون إعانة بطالة قد تضاعف. ومع استمرار البطالة، تتدهور الأوضاع المالية للأسر؛ إذ تستنزف مدخراتها، وتعجز عن دفع الفواتير، وتفقد بيوتها.
-----------------
على الرغم من أن أسباب البطالة الطويلة الأجل تكمن بوضوح في ظروف ذات صلة بالاقتصاد الكلي وفشل السياسات — وهي أمور خارجة عن سيطرة أي شخص — فإن هذا لا يقي الضحايا من الوصْم؛ فهل يؤدي قضاء وقت طويل دون عمل إلى تآكل مهارات العمل حقا، ويجعل منك خيارا غير مناسب للتوظيف؟ وهل تشير حقيقة كونك ظللت عاطلا عن العمل فترة طويلة إلى أنك كنت فاشلا في الأساس؟ ربما لا يكون هذا صحيحا , ولكن العديد من أرباب العمل يعتقدون أنها الحقيقة ، وبالنسبة إلى العامل قد يكون هذا هو كل ما يهم؛ فإذا فقدت وظيفتك في ظل هذا الاقتصاد، فسيكون من الصعب جدا العثور على وظيفة أخرى، وإذا ظللت عاطلا عن العمل لفترة طويلة، فسوف تعتبر ممنْ يتعذر توظيفهم.
----------------------
السعادة تعتمد بقوة على شعور المرء بأنه يملك زمام أمره. فكروا فيما يحدث لذلك الشعور عندما تريد أن تعمل، ولكن تمضي شهور عديدة دون أن تستطيع العثور على وظيفة، أو عندما تتهاوى الحياة التي بنيْتها لأن نقودك تنفد؛ فلا عجب أن تشير الدلائل إلى أن البطالة الطويلة الأجل تفضي إلى القلق والاكتئاب النفسي.
------------------------
هناك الزيادة الحادة في عدد الأمريكيين الذين تتراوح أعمارهم بين أربعة وعشرين عاما وأربعة وثلاثين عاما ممن يعيشون مع ذويهم؛ ولا يعبر ذلك عن صحوة مفاجئة في تفاني الأبناء، بل بالأحرى يعبر عن انخفاض جذري في فرص العيش في غير كنف ذويهم.
-----------------
الناتج المحلي الإجمالي الحقيقي، وهو القيمة الإجمالية للسلع والخدمات المنتجة في اقتصاد ما، مع أخذ التضخم في الاعتبار. ويمكن تعريفه على وجه التقريب بأنه كمية الأشياء (والتي تشمل الخدمات بطبيعة الحال) التي ينتجها الاقتصاد في فترة زمنية محددة. وحيث إن الدخل يأتي من بيع الأشياء، يطلق عليه أيضا إجمالي الدخل المكتسب، الذي يحدد حجم الكعكة المقسمة بين الأجور والأرباح والضرائب.
--------------------------------
في بعض الأحيان يكون استبدال بطارية ثمنها ١٠٠ دولار هو كل ما يلزم لإعادة تشغيل سيارة معطلة تساوي ٣٠ ألف دولار
--------------------------
دخْل كل فرد — وكذلك دخْل كل بلد — هو إنفاق شخص آخر
--------------------------
فخ السيولة؛ هو ما يحدث عندما لا يصبح مستوى الصفر منخفضا بما فيه الكفاية، عندما يشبع بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي الاقتصاد بالسيولة حتى لا تعود ثمة تكلفة للاحتفاظ بالمزيد من النقود، ومع ذلك يبقى الطلب الكلي منخفضا جدا.
-------------------------
عندما قرر الجميع فجأة أن مستويات المديونية صارتْ أعلى من اللازم، اضطر المدينون لخفض إنفاقهم، فيما لم يكن الدائنون على استعداد لزيادة إنفاقهم، وكانت النتيجة هي الكساد؛ ليس الكساد الكبير، ولكنه كساد على أي حال.
---------------------------
أعتقد أن المعروض لديْنا حاليا من عمالة يفتقر إلى التدريب والقدرة على التكيف بدرجة مذهلة، ولا يمكنه أن يستجيب للفرص التي قد تقدمها الصناعة؛ ويعني هذا حالة من التفاوت الهائل، تتمثل في توظيف كامل، وساعات إضافية كثيرة، وأجور مرتفعة ورخاء عظيم لبعض الفئات المحظاة، مقابل أجور منخفضة وساعات عمل قليلة وبطالة، وربما العوز لفئات أخرى
---------------------
إذا كان لديْنا بطالة جماعية لأن عددا كبيرا جدا من العمال يفتقرون للمقومات المناسبة، إذنْ ينبغي أن نجد أعدادا لا بأس بها من العمال الذين يمتلكون تلك المقومات تعيش في رخاء، وهو ما لا نجده؛ ما نراه بدلا من ذلك هو الفقر في كل مكان، وهو ما يحدث عندما يعاني الاقتصاد عدم كفاية الطلب
-------------------------
إن فترات الاستقرار الاقتصادي تولد زيادة في نسبة المديونية؛ حيث لا يعبأ أحد بخطر عجز المقترضين عن السداد، غير أن هذه الزيادة في نسبة المديونية تؤدي في نهاية المطاف إلى عدم الاستقرار الاقتصادي، بل إنها تمهد الطريق لحدوث أزمة مالية واقتصادية
--------------
الديون مفيدة جدا؛ فقد كنا سنصبح مجتمعا أكثر فقرا إذا ما اضطر كل من يرغب في شراء منزل إلى الدفع نقدا، ولجأ كل صاحب مشروع صغير يسعى إلى التوسع إما للدفع من ماله الخاص لتحقيق هذا التوسع، وإما إلى تحمل شركاء غير مرغوب فيهم. والدين وسيلة لتشغيل نقود أولئك الذين لا يجدون استخدامات جيدة لها في الوقت الراهن، في خدمة من يم��لكون استخدامات جيدة لها.
-------------------------
لا يتسبب الديْن في إفقار المجتمع ككل؛ فدين شخص ما هو أحد أصول شخص آخر؛ لذلك فإجمالي الثروة لا يتأثر بكمية الديون المتداولة
--------------------
على الرغم من كل ما قد تكون قد سمعْته عن الاقتراض من الصين وما إلى ذلك، فإن هذا ليس صحيحا فيما يتعلق بالولايات المتحدة؛ فالعجز في صافي وضع الاستثمار الدولي للولايات المتحدة — أو الفارق بين أصولها وديونها في الخارج قيمته ٢٫٥ تريليون دولار فقط قد يبدو هذا كثيرا، ولكنه في الواقع ليس كذلك في إطار اقتصاد ينتج ما قيمته ١٥ تريليون دولار من السلع والخدمات سنويا. وقد تزايدتْ ديون الولايات المتحدة سريعا منذ عام ١٩٨٠ ، غير أن هذه الزيادة السريعة في الديْن لم تجعلنا غارقين في الديْن لسائر دول العالم
-------------------
من البديهي أن زيادة نسبة المديونية — أيْ زيادة حجم الديْن نسبة إلى الدخل أو الأصول — تجعلك أكثر عرضة للخطر عندما تسوء الأمور؛ فالعائلة التي اشترتْ منزلها دون أي مقدم باستخدام الرهن العقاري القائم على الفائدة فقط، ستجد أن القيمة السوقية للمنزل أقل من قيمته الدفترية؛ ومن ثم ستجد نفسها في ورطة إذا ما حدث هبوط في سوق العقارات، حتى إن كان ضئيلا؛ أما الأسرة التي دفعتْ مقدما قدره ٢٠ بالمائة، وتعمل على سداد أصل القرض منذ ذلك الوقت، فمن المرجح أن تجتاز المحنة
------------------------
عندما تتزايد نسبة الديون لدى الكثير من الأفراد والشركات، يصبح الاقتصاد بأسْره أكثر عرضة للمخاطر إذا ما ساءت الأمور؛ فمستويات الديْن المرتفعة تجعل الاقتصاد عرضة لنوع من دوامة الموت، فيها تفضي جهود خفض التمويل بالديون التي يبذلها المدينون في حد ذاتها إلى خلق بيئة تفاقم مشكلات الديون.
--------------------
إذا وجد العديد من الأطراف في الاقتصاد أنفسهم مثقلين بالديون في الوقت نفسه، فإن جهودهم الجماعية الرامية للخروج من المأزق تهزم نفسها بنفسها. فإذا حاول الملايين من أصحاب المنازل المتعثرين بيْع منازلهم لسداد قرض الرهن العقاري أو إذا حجز الدائنون على منازلهم، ثم حاولوا بيع العقارات المرهونة — تصبح النتيجة هي انخفاض أسعار المنازل؛ ما يقلل القيمة السوقية للمزيد من المنازل، ويؤدي إلى زيادة البيع القسري. وإذا شعرت البنوك بالقلق إزاء حجم الديون الإسبانية والإيطالية في دفاترها، وقررتْ أن تتجه للحد من مخاطرها ببيع بعض تلك الديون، فإن أسعار السندات الإسبانية والإيطالية ستهبط؛ الأمر الذي يهدد استقرار البنوك، ويجبرها على بيع المزيد من الأصول. وإذا خفض المستهلكون إنفاقهم في محاولة لسداد ديون بطاقات الائتمان، ينهار الاقتصاد وتختفي الوظائف، ويتزايد عبء الديون على المستهلكين؛ وإذا تدهور الوضع أكثر، فيمكن للاقتصاد كله أن يعاني انكماشا — أيْ هبوط الأسعار في جميع القطاعات — ما يعني أن القوة الشرائية للدولار سترتفع؛ ومن ثم فإن العبء الحقيقي للديْن سيتزايد، حتى إذا اتجهت القيمة الدولارية للديون إلى الانخفاض.
----------------
المدينون عاجزون عن الإنفاق، والدائنون محجمون عنه
--------------------
صحيح أننا نعاني استفحال الديون، ولكنها ليستْ نقودا مستحقة لشخص أو جهة خارجية، وإنما يدين بهذه النقود بعضنا لبعض، وهذا يصنع فارقا كبيرا
------------------------
العالم الذي تحاول نسبة كبيرة من أفراده أو شركاته أو كليْهما أن تسدد ديونها في وقت واحد، هو عالم ينهار فيه الدخْل وقيمة الأصول، وتزداد مشكلات الديْن فيه سوءا عوضا عن أن تتحسن
----------------------
كان الصاغة — بحكم ارتفاع قيمة المادة الخام التي يستخدمونها — يمتلكون دائما خزائن شديدة الصلابة، مقاومة للسرقة، ثم بدأ بعضهم في تأجير هذه الخزائن؛ فصار بإمكان الأفراد الذين يمتلكون ذهبا ولا يجدون مكانا آمنا لحفظه أن يعهدوا به إلى الصائغ، ويحتفظون بتذكرة تسمح لهم باستعادة ذهبهم متى شاءوا. وهنا بدأ شيئان مثيران للاهتمام في الحدوث؛ أولا : اكتشف الصاغة أنهم ليسوا مضطرين للاحتفاظ بكل ما في خزائنهم من ذهب؛ فنظرا لأنه من غير المرجح أن يطالب جميع المودعين بذهبهم في آن واحد، كان من المأمون (عادة) أن يقرضوا جزءا كبيرا من الذهب، مع الاحتفاظ بجزء منه فقط في خزائنهم. وثانيا: بدأ تداول تذاكر الذهب المخزن باعتبارها نوعا من العملة؛ فبدلا من أن يدفع الشخص باستخدام العملات الذهبية الحقيقية، أصبح بإمكانه أن ينقل ملكية بعض القطع النقدية التي يخزنها عند الصائغ؛ ومن ثم أصبحتْ قصاصة الورق المقابلة لتلك القطع النقدية معادلة للذهب بصورة أو بأخرى.
------------
ينفق الأغنياء أكثر لأنهم ببساطة يمتلكون الكثير من النقود الزائ��ة عن حاجتهم، ويحدث إنفاقهم تحولا في الإطار المرجعي الذي يشكل مطالب الطبقة الأدنى منهم مباشرة، التي يتحرك أعضاؤها في دوائر اجتماعية متداخلة؛ ومن ثم، يزيد إنفاق المجموعة الثانية هي الأخرى؛ مما يؤدي إلى حدوث تحول في الإطار المرجعي الذي يشكل مطالب الطبقة الأدنى منها، وهكذا دواليك، وصولا إلى قاع سلم الدخْل. وقد تسبب هذا التسلسل في حدوث زيادة كبيرة في تكلفة تحقيق الأهداف المالية الأساسية لعائلات الطبقة المتوسطة
-----------------
عاملا كبيرا من العوامل المؤثرة في حالات الإفلاس تلك كان تزايد التفاوت في التعليم العام، الذي عكس بدوره التفاوت المتزايد في الدخل؛ فقد أجهدتْ أسر الطبقة المتوسطة نفسها من أجل شراء منازل في مناطق المدارس الجيدة؛ ومن ثم ازدادتْ أعباؤهم من الديون؛ مما جعلهم عرضة للخطر في حالة فقدان الوظيفة أو المرض
----------------------
علينا أن نفكر في الدور الذي يلعبه المال في تشكيل السياسة بوصفه حدثا متعدد المستويات؛ فثمة الكثير من الفساد الخام؛ في صورة ساسة يبيعون ذممهم ببساطة؛ إما عن طريق حملات التبرعات، وإما من خلال المكافآت الشخصية. ولكن في كثير من الحالات — وربما في معظمها — يكون الفساد أخف حدة وأقل وضوحا؛ حيث يكافأ الساسة على اتخاذ مواقف بعينها؛ ما يجعلهم يزدادون تمسكا بها، حتى يقر في أذهانهم أنهم حقا لا يبيعون ذمتهم، ولكن ظاهريا يصبح من الصعب معرفة الفرق بين ما يؤمنون به حقا وما يؤمنون به نظير مقابل
-----------------------
تيسر الثروة الوصول إلى مراكز السلطة، التي يأتي الوصول إليها بالنفوذ الشخصي؛ فيمكن لكبار المصرفيين أن يصلوا إلى البيت الأبيض أو إلى مكاتب أعضاء مجلس الشيوخ، خلافا لرجل الشارع العادي. وحالما يصبحون داخل تلك المكاتب، يمكنهم أن يكونوا مقنعين، ليس فقط بسبب الهدايا التي يقدمونها، ولكن بسبب وضعهم؛ فالأغنياء يختلفون عني وعنك، ليس فقط لأن ثيابهم أرقى، بل لأنهم يتحلوْن بالثقة وتلوح عليهم أمارات الخبرة والدراية اللتين تصحبان النجاح المادي، وأسلوب حياتهم مغْر، حتى لو لم تكن لديك أي نية لعمل ما يلزم للحصول على أسلوب حياة مماثل لنفسك. وفي حالة نوعية الأشخاص الذين تجدهم في وول ستريت فهم أذكياء حقا؛ ومن ثم يتسمون بفصاحة اللسان.
----------------------
في الظروف العادية قد يظن المرء أن الخيار الأفضل لرئيس وزراء الدولة هو محاولة القيام بالأمور التي من المحتمل أن تؤدي إلى إعادة انتخابه؛ فمهما كانت التوقعات قاتمة، فستكون تلك هي الاستراتيجية السائدة. ولكن في عصر العولمة ومحاولات فرْض طابع الاتحاد الأوروبي على الدول الأعضاء فيه، أعتقد أن وضْع قادة الدول الصغيرة اختلف بعض الشيء في الواقع؛ فإذا تركْت منصبك متمتعا باحترام المنتدى الاقتصادي العالمي، فقد تجد نفسك مؤهلا للعمل بعدد من الكيانات التابعة للمفوضية الأوروبية أو صندوق النقد الدولي أو ما شابه، حتى لو كنت محل ازدراء تام من مواطنيك؛ بل قد يكون الازدراء التام في بعض الأحيان ميزة إضافية لك؛ فأقصى مظاهر الوحدة مع المجتمع الدولي هو أن تفعل ما يريده المجتمع الدولي، حتى إن كان هذا في مواجهة معارضة هائلة على صعيد السياسية المحلية.
------------------
في اقتصاد الكساد، لا يتنافس عجز الميزانية مع القطاع الخاص على التمويل؛ ومن ثم لا يدفع أسعار الفائدة إلى الارتفاع؛ كل ما في الأمر أن الحكومة تحاول أن تجد استخداما لفائض مدخرات القطاع الخاص؛ أي الجزء الفائض مما يريد القطاع الخاص أن يدخره بعد اقتطاع الجزء الذي يرغب في استثماره.
------------------------------
الطريقة المعتادة لقياس الديْن الحكومي للدولة هي أن نقْسمه على الناتج المحلي الإجمالي لهذا البلد — وهو القيمة الإجمالية للسلع والخدمات التي ينتجها اقتصاد البلاد سنويا — وذلك لأن الناتج المحلي الإجمالي في الواقع يمثل القاعدة الضريبية للحكومة أيضا
-------------------
لا يطبع بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي النقود فعليا، وإنْ كانت تصرفاته قد تدفع الخزانة إلى طباعة النقود؛ ما يفعله بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي — عندما يختار أن يتدخل — هو شراء أصول، عادة في شكل أذون الخزانة، أو ما يطلق عليه الديْن الحكومي الأمريكي القصير الأجل، لكن في الآونة الأخيرة اتسع نطاق تلك الأصول كثيرا. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، يقدم بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي قروضا للبنوك مباشرة، إلا أن هذا نفس الشيء فعليا؛ حيث يمكن النظر إليه كما لو كان شراء لتلك القروض. مربط الفرس هنا هو مصدر النقود التي يحصل عليها بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي لشراء تلك الأصول، والإجابة على ذلك هي أنه يأتي بها من العدم؛ حيث يخاطب بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي سيتي بنك — على سبيل المثال — عارضا عليه شراء ما قيمته ١ مليار دولار من أذون الخزانة، وعندما يقْبل سيتي بنك هذا العرض، ينقل ملكية هذه الأذون لبنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي، وفي المقابل يضيف بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي اعتمادا قدره مليار دو
.
مقتطفات من كتاب أنْهوا هذا الكساد الآن بول كروجمان
--------------------
الكثير من الأشخاص المهمين — من ساسة ومسئولين حكوميين والشريحة الأكبر من الكتاب والمتحدثين المعبرين عن الأعراف المتبعة — اختاروا، لمختلف الأسباب، ��ن يتناسوا الدروس المستفادة من التاريخ والاستنتاجات التي توصلتْ إليها التحليلات الاقتصادية على مدى أجيال عدة، ليستعيضوا عن تلك المعرفة التي توصلْنا إليها بشق الأنفس بأحكام مسبقة تتفق مع تحيزاتهم الأيديولوجية والسياسية
------------------------------
تخبرنا أبحاث السعادة أن المال لا يظل بالغ الأهمية بمجرد أن تصل إلى مرحلة القدرة على تحمل تكاليف ضرورات الحياة. صحيح أن عائد الثراء ليس صفرا بالمعنى الحرفي للكلمة؛ فبصفة عامة، مواطنو البلدان الغنية أكثر شعورا بالرضا عن حياتهم من مواطني الدول الأقل ثراء، فضلا عن ذلك فإن كوْنك أكثر ثراء أو أكثر فقرا ممن تقارن نفسك بهم قض��ة مهمة في حد ذاتها، ولهذا يمكن أن يكون لانعدام المساواة الهائل تأثير مدمر على المجتمع؛ لكن في نهاية المطاف، المال أقل أهمية مما يظن أنصار المادية البحتة والعديد من الاقتصاديين
---------------------------------
فالأشخاص الذين يرغبون في العمل ولا يجدون وظيفة يعانون أشد المعاناة؛ ليس فقط من جراء انعدام الدخْل، ولكن أيضا بسبب شعورهم بتضاؤل قيمتهم الذاتية،
------------------------------------
أي شخص مستعد للعمل وجاد في ذلك، سوف يجد وظيفة بكل تأكيد. لكن لا تذهب إلى من يقول لك هذا؛ لأنه لا يملك وظيفة يقدمها لك، ولا يعرف أحدا يمكن أن يدلك على وظيفة شاغرة؛ وهذا هو السبب تحديدا في أنه يعطيك هذه النصيحة الطيبة، النابعة من المحبة الأخوية، التي تظهر مدى قصور معرفته بالعالم
----------------------
في أبريل ٢٠١١ ، أعلنتْ ماكدونالدز عن ٥٠ ألف فرصة عمل جديدة، وتقدم لها نحو مليون شخص.
-------------------------
في أوقات الرخاء تكون البطالة في الغالب حالة مؤقتة؛ ففي أوقات الرخاء، يكون ثمة شبه توافق بين عدد الباحثين عن عمل وعدد فرص العمل؛ ونتيجة لذلك يعثر أكثر الباحثين عن عمل على وظيفة بسرعة إلى حد كبير. فمن بين عدد السبعة ملايين أمريكي العاطلين عن العمل قبل الأزمة، ظل أقل من الخمس عاطلا لمدة تصل إلى ستة أشهر، وظل أقل من العشْر عاطلا عن العمل لمدة عام أو أكثر
------------------
تخلف البطالة الطويلة الأجل جرحا غائرا في معنويات العاملين في أي مكان، وفي الولايات المتحدة — حيث شبكة الأمان الاجتماعي أضعف من مثيلاتها في أي دولة متقدمة أخرى — يمكن للبطالة أن تتحول بسهولة إلى كابوس؛ فغالبا ما يعني فقْد الوظيفة خسارة التأمين الصحي. وتستنفد إعانات البطالة، التي لا تتجاوز عادة نحو ثلث الدخل - المفقود في كل الأحوال. وعلى مدار ٢٠١٠-٢٠١١ ، حدث انخفاض طفيف في معدلات البطالة الرسمية، إلا أن عدد الأمريكيين العاطلين عن العمل الذين لا يتلقون إعانة بطالة قد تضاعف. ومع استمرار البطالة، تتدهور الأوضاع المالية للأسر؛ إذ تستنزف مدخراتها، وتعجز عن دفع الفواتير، وتفقد بيوتها.
-----------------
على الرغم من أن أسباب البطالة الطويلة الأجل تكمن بوضوح في ظروف ذات صلة بالاقتصاد الكلي وفشل السياسات — وهي أمور خارجة عن سيطرة أي شخص — فإن هذا لا يقي الضحايا من الوصْم؛ فهل يؤدي قضاء وقت طويل دون عمل إلى تآكل مهارات العمل حقا، ويجعل منك خيارا غير مناسب للتوظيف؟ وهل تشير حقيقة كونك ظللت عاطلا عن العمل فترة طويلة إلى أنك كنت فاشلا في الأساس؟ ربما لا يكون هذا صحيحا , ولكن العديد من أرباب العمل يعتقدون أنها الحقيقة ، وبالنسبة إلى العامل قد يكون هذا هو كل ما يهم؛ فإذا فقدت وظيفتك في ظل هذا الاقتصاد، فسيكون من الصعب جدا العثور على وظيفة أخرى، وإذا ظللت عاطلا عن العمل لفترة طويلة، فسوف تعتبر ممنْ يتعذر توظيفهم.
----------------------
السعادة تعتمد بقوة على شعور المرء بأنه يملك زمام أمره. فكروا فيما يحدث لذلك الشعور عندما تريد أن تعمل، ولكن تمضي شهور عديدة دون أن تستطيع العثور على وظيفة، أو عندما تتهاوى الحياة التي بنيْتها لأن نقودك تنفد؛ فلا عجب أن تشير الدلائل إلى أن البطالة الطويلة الأجل تفضي إلى القلق والاكتئاب النفسي.
------------------------
هناك الزيادة الحادة في عدد الأمريكيين الذين تتراوح أعمارهم بين أربعة وعشرين عاما وأربعة وثلاثين عاما ممن يعيشون مع ذويهم؛ ولا يعبر ذلك عن صحوة مفاجئة في تفاني الأبناء، بل بالأحرى يعبر عن انخفاض جذري في فرص العيش في غير كنف ذويهم.
-----------------
الناتج المحلي الإجمالي الحقيقي، وهو القيمة الإجمالية للسلع والخدمات المنتجة في اقتصاد ما، مع أخذ التضخم في الاعتبار. ويمكن تعريفه على وجه التقريب بأنه كمية الأشياء (والتي تشمل الخدمات بطبيعة الحال) التي ينتجها الاقتصاد في فترة زمنية محددة. وحيث إن الدخل يأتي من بيع الأشياء، يطلق عليه أيضا إجمالي الدخل المكتسب، الذي يحدد حجم الكعكة المقسمة بين الأجور والأرباح والضرائب.
--------------------------------
في بعض الأحيان يكون استبدال بطارية ثمنها ١٠٠ دولار هو كل ما يلزم لإعادة تشغيل سيارة معطلة تساوي ٣٠ ألف دولار
--------------------------
دخْل كل فرد — وكذلك دخْل كل بلد — هو إنفاق شخص آخر
--------------------------
فخ السيولة؛ هو ما يحدث عندما لا يصبح مستوى الصفر منخفضا بما فيه الكفاية، عندما يشبع بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي الاقتصاد بالسيولة حتى لا تعود ثمة تكلفة للاحتفاظ بالمزيد من النقود، ومع ذلك يبقى الطلب الكلي منخفضا جدا.
-------------------------
عندما قرر الجميع فجأة أن مستويات المديونية صارتْ أعلى من اللازم، اضطر المدينون لخفض إنفاقهم، فيما لم يكن الدائنون على استعداد لزيادة إنفاقهم، وكانت النتيجة هي الكساد؛ ليس الكساد الكبير، ولكنه كساد على أي حال.
---------------------------
أعتقد أن المعروض لديْنا حاليا من عمالة يفتقر إلى التدريب والقدرة على التكيف بدرجة مذهلة، ولا يمكنه أن يستجيب للفرص التي قد تقدمها الصناعة؛ ويعني هذا حالة من التفاوت الهائل، تتمثل في توظيف كامل، وساعات إضافية كثيرة، وأجور مرتفعة ورخاء عظيم لبعض الفئات المحظاة، مقابل أجور منخفضة وساعات عمل قليلة وبطالة، وربما العوز لفئات أخرى
---------------------
إذا كان لديْنا بطالة جماعية لأن عددا كبيرا جدا من العمال يفتقرون للمقومات المناسبة، إذنْ ينبغي أن نجد أعدادا لا بأس بها من العمال الذين يمتلكون تلك المقومات تعيش في رخاء، وهو ما لا نجده؛ ما نراه بدلا من ذلك هو الفقر في كل مكان، وهو ما يحدث عندما يعاني الاقتصاد عدم كفاية الطلب
-------------------------
إن فترات الاستقرار الاقتصادي تولد زيادة في نسبة المديونية؛ حيث لا يعبأ أحد بخطر عجز المقترضين عن السداد، غير أن هذه الزيادة في نسبة المديونية تؤدي في نهاية المطاف إلى عدم الاستقرار الاقتصادي، بل إنها تمهد الطريق لحدوث أزمة مالية واقتصادية
--------------
الديون مفيدة جدا؛ فقد كنا سنصبح مجتمعا أكثر فقرا إذا ما اضطر كل من يرغب في شراء منزل إلى الدفع نقدا، ولجأ كل صاحب مشروع صغير يسعى إلى التوسع إما للدفع من ماله الخاص لتحقيق هذا التوسع، وإما إلى تحمل شركاء غير مرغوب فيهم. والدين وسيلة لتشغيل نقود أولئك الذين لا يجدون استخدامات جيدة لها في الوقت الراهن، في خدمة من يم��لكون استخدامات جيدة لها.
-------------------------
لا يتسبب الديْن في إفقار المجتمع ككل؛ فدين شخص ما هو أحد أصول شخص آخر؛ لذلك فإجمالي الثروة لا يتأثر بكمية الديون المتداولة
--------------------
على الرغم من كل ما قد تكون قد سمعْته عن الاقتراض من الصين وما إلى ذلك، فإن هذا ليس صحيحا فيما يتعلق بالولايات المتحدة؛ فالعجز في صافي وضع الاستثمار الدولي للولايات المتحدة — أو الفارق بين أصولها وديونها في الخارج قيمته ٢٫٥ تريليون دولار فقط قد يبدو هذا كثيرا، ولكنه في الواقع ليس كذلك في إطار اقتصاد ينتج ما قيمته ١٥ تريليون دولار من السلع والخدمات سنويا. وقد تزايدتْ ديون الولايات المتحدة سريعا منذ عام ١٩٨٠ ، غير أن هذه الزيادة السريعة في الديْن لم تجعلنا غارقين في الديْن لسائر دول العالم
-------------------
من البديهي أن زيادة نسبة المديونية — أيْ زيادة حجم الديْن نسبة إلى الدخل أو الأصول — تجعلك أكثر عرضة للخطر عندما تسوء الأمور؛ فالعائلة التي اشترتْ منزلها دون أي مقدم باستخدام الرهن العقاري القائم على الفائدة فقط، ستجد أن القيمة السوقية للمنزل أقل من قيمته الدفترية؛ ومن ثم ستجد نفسها في ورطة إذا ما حدث هبوط في سوق العقارات، حتى إن كان ضئيلا؛ أما الأسرة التي دفعتْ مقدما قدره ٢٠ بالمائة، وتعمل على سداد أصل القرض منذ ذلك الوقت، فمن المرجح أن تجتاز المحنة
------------------------
عندما تتزايد نسبة الديون لدى الكثير من الأفراد والشركات، يصبح الاقتصاد بأسْره أكثر عرضة للمخاطر إذا ما ساءت الأمور؛ فمستويات الديْن المرتفعة تجعل الاقتصاد عرضة لنوع من دوامة الموت، فيها تفضي جهود خفض التمويل بالديون التي يبذلها المدينون في حد ذاتها إلى خلق بيئة تفاقم مشكلات الديون.
--------------------
إذا وجد العديد من الأطراف في الاقتصاد أنفسهم مثقلين بالديون في الوقت نفسه، فإن جهودهم الجماعية الرامية للخروج من المأزق تهزم نفسها بنفسها. فإذا حاول الملايين من أصحاب المنازل المتعثرين بيْع منازلهم لسداد قرض الرهن العقاري أو إذا حجز الدائنون على منازلهم، ثم حاولوا بيع العقارات المرهونة — تصبح النتيجة هي انخفاض أسعار المنازل؛ ما يقلل القيمة السوقية للمزيد من المنازل، ويؤدي إلى زيادة البيع القسري. وإذا شعرت البنوك بالقلق إزاء حجم الديون الإسبانية والإيطالية في دفاترها، وقررتْ أن تتجه للحد من مخاطرها ببيع بعض تلك الديون، فإن أسعار السندات الإسبانية والإيطالية ستهبط؛ الأمر الذي يهدد استقرار البنوك، ويجبرها على بيع المزيد من الأصول. وإذا خفض المستهلكون إنفاقهم في محاولة لسداد ديون بطاقات الائتمان، ينهار الاقتصاد وتختفي الوظائف، ويتزايد عبء الديون على المستهلكين؛ وإذا تدهور الوضع أكثر، فيمكن للاقتصاد كله أن يعاني انكماشا — أيْ هبوط الأسعار في جميع القطاعات — ما يعني أن القوة الشرائية للدولار سترتفع؛ ومن ثم فإن العبء الحقيقي للديْن سيتزايد، حتى إذا اتجهت القيمة الدولارية للديون إلى الانخفاض.
----------------
المدينون عاجزون عن الإنفاق، والدائنون محجمون عنه
--------------------
صحيح أننا نعاني استفحال الديون، ولكنها ليستْ نقودا مستحقة لشخص أو جهة خارجية، وإنما يدين بهذه النقود بعضنا لبعض، وهذا يصنع فارقا كبيرا
------------------------
العالم الذي تحاول نسبة كبيرة من أفراده أو شركاته أو كليْهما أن تسدد ديونها في وقت واحد، هو عالم ينهار فيه الدخْل وقيمة الأصول، وتزداد مشكلات الديْن فيه سوءا عوضا عن أن تتحسن
----------------------
كان الصاغة — بحكم ارتفاع قيمة المادة الخام التي يستخدمونها — يمتلكون دائما خزائن شديدة الصلابة، مقاومة للسرقة، ثم بدأ بعضهم في تأجير هذه الخزائن؛ فصار بإمكان الأفراد الذين يمتلكون ذهبا ولا يجدون مكانا آمنا لحفظه أن يعهدوا به إلى الصائغ، ويحتفظون بتذكرة تسمح لهم باستعادة ذهبهم متى شاءوا. وهنا بدأ شيئان مثيران للاهتمام في الحدوث؛ أولا : اكتشف الصاغة أنهم ليسوا مضطرين للاحتفاظ بكل ما في خزائنهم من ذهب؛ فنظرا لأنه من غير المرجح أن يطالب جميع المودعين بذهبهم في آن واحد، كان من المأمون (عادة) أن يقرضوا جزءا كبيرا من الذهب، مع الاحتفاظ بجزء منه فقط في خزائنهم. وثانيا: بدأ تداول تذاكر الذهب المخزن باعتبارها نوعا من العملة؛ فبدلا من أن يدفع الشخص باستخدام العملات الذهبية الحقيقية، أصبح بإمكانه أن ينقل ملكية بعض القطع النقدية التي يخزنها عند الصائغ؛ ومن ثم أصبحتْ قصاصة الورق المقابلة لتلك القطع النقدية معادلة للذهب بصورة أو بأخرى.
------------
ينفق الأغنياء أكثر لأنهم ببساطة يمتلكون الكثير من النقود الزائ��ة عن حاجتهم، ويحدث إنفاقهم تحولا في الإطار المرجعي الذي يشكل مطالب الطبقة الأدنى منهم مباشرة، التي يتحرك أعضاؤها في دوائر اجتماعية متداخلة؛ ومن ثم، يزيد إنفاق المجموعة الثانية هي الأخرى؛ مما يؤدي إلى حدوث تحول في الإطار المرجعي الذي يشكل مطالب الطبقة الأدنى منها، وهكذا دواليك، وصولا إلى قاع سلم الدخْل. وقد تسبب هذا التسلسل في حدوث زيادة كبيرة في تكلفة تحقيق الأهداف المالية الأساسية لعائلات الطبقة المتوسطة
-----------------
عاملا كبيرا من العوامل المؤثرة في حالات الإفلاس تلك كان تزايد التفاوت في التعليم العام، الذي عكس بدوره التفاوت المتزايد في الدخل؛ فقد أجهدتْ أسر الطبقة المتوسطة نفسها من أجل شراء منازل في مناطق المدارس الجيدة؛ ومن ثم ازدادتْ أعباؤهم من الديون؛ مما جعلهم عرضة للخطر في حالة فقدان الوظيفة أو المرض
----------------------
علينا أن نفكر في الدور الذي يلعبه المال في تشكيل السياسة بوصفه حدثا متعدد المستويات؛ فثمة الكثير من الفساد الخام؛ في صورة ساسة يبيعون ذممهم ببساطة؛ إما عن طريق حملات التبرعات، وإما من خلال المكافآت الشخصية. ولكن في كثير من الحالات — وربما في معظمها — يكون الفساد أخف حدة وأقل وضوحا؛ حيث يكافأ الساسة على اتخاذ مواقف بعينها؛ ما يجعلهم يزدادون تمسكا بها، حتى يقر في أذهانهم أنهم حقا لا يبيعون ذمتهم، ولكن ظاهريا يصبح من الصعب معرفة الفرق بين ما يؤمنون به حقا وما يؤمنون به نظير مقابل
-----------------------
تيسر الثروة الوصول إلى مراكز السلطة، التي يأتي الوصول إليها بالنفوذ الشخصي؛ فيمكن لكبار المصرفيين أن يصلوا إلى البيت الأبيض أو إلى مكاتب أعضاء مجلس الشيوخ، خلافا لرجل الشارع العادي. وحالما يصبحون داخل تلك المكاتب، يمكنهم أن يكونوا مقنعين، ليس فقط بسبب الهدايا التي يقدمونها، ولكن بسبب وضعهم؛ فالأغنياء يختلفون عني وعنك، ليس فقط لأن ثيابهم أرقى، بل لأنهم يتحلوْن بالثقة وتلوح عليهم أمارات الخبرة والدراية اللتين تصحبان النجاح المادي، وأسلوب حياتهم مغْر، حتى لو لم تكن لديك أي نية لعمل ما يلزم للحصول على أسلوب حياة مماثل لنفسك. وفي حالة نوعية الأشخاص الذين تجدهم في وول ستريت فهم أذكياء حقا؛ ومن ثم يتسمون بفصاحة اللسان.
----------------------
في الظروف العادية قد يظن المرء أن الخيار الأفضل لرئيس وزراء الدولة هو محاولة القيام بالأمور التي من المحتمل أن تؤدي إلى إعادة انتخابه؛ فمهما كانت التوقعات قاتمة، فستكون تلك هي الاستراتيجية السائدة. ولكن في عصر العولمة ومحاولات فرْض طابع الاتحاد الأوروبي على الدول الأعضاء فيه، أعتقد أن وضْع قادة الدول الصغيرة اختلف بعض الشيء في الواقع؛ فإذا تركْت منصبك متمتعا باحترام المنتدى الاقتصادي العالمي، فقد تجد نفسك مؤهلا للعمل بعدد من الكيانات التابعة للمفوضية الأوروبية أو صندوق النقد الدولي أو ما شابه، حتى لو كنت محل ازدراء تام من مواطنيك؛ بل قد يكون الازدراء التام في بعض الأحيان ميزة إضافية لك؛ فأقصى مظاهر الوحدة مع المجتمع الدولي هو أن تفعل ما يريده المجتمع الدولي، حتى إن كان هذا في مواجهة معارضة هائلة على صعيد السياسية المحلية.
------------------
في اقتصاد الكساد، لا يتنافس عجز الميزانية مع القطاع الخاص على التمويل؛ ومن ثم لا يدفع أسعار الفائدة إلى الارتفاع؛ كل ما في الأمر أن الحكومة تحاول أن تجد استخداما لفائض مدخرات القطاع الخاص؛ أي الجزء الفائض مما يريد القطاع الخاص أن يدخره بعد اقتطاع الجزء الذي يرغب في استثماره.
------------------------------
الطريقة المعتادة لقياس الديْن الحكومي للدولة هي أن نقْسمه على الناتج المحلي الإجمالي لهذا البلد — وهو القيمة الإجمالية للسلع والخدمات التي ينتجها اقتصاد البلاد سنويا — وذلك لأن الناتج المحلي الإجمالي في الواقع يمثل القاعدة الضريبية للحكومة أيضا
-------------------
لا يطبع بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي النقود فعليا، وإنْ كانت تصرفاته قد تدفع الخزانة إلى طباعة النقود؛ ما يفعله بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي — عندما يختار أن يتدخل — هو شراء أصول، عادة في شكل أذون الخزانة، أو ما يطلق عليه الديْن الحكومي الأمريكي القصير الأجل، لكن في الآونة الأخيرة اتسع نطاق تلك الأصول كثيرا. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، يقدم بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي قروضا للبنوك مباشرة، إلا أن هذا نفس الشيء فعليا؛ حيث يمكن النظر إليه كما لو كان شراء لتلك القروض. مربط الفرس هنا هو مصدر النقود التي يحصل عليها بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي لشراء تلك الأصول، والإجابة على ذلك هي أنه يأتي بها من العدم؛ حيث يخاطب بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي سيتي بنك — على سبيل المثال — عارضا عليه شراء ما قيمته ١ مليار دولار من أذون الخزانة، وعندما يقْبل سيتي بنك هذا العرض، ينقل ملكية هذه الأذون لبنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي، وفي المقابل يضيف بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي اعتمادا قدره مليار دو
June 15, 2018
كتاب مهم من الحائز على جائزة نوبل في الاقتصاد بول كروجمان عن الازمة العالمية في عام ٢٠٠٨ واثارها المدمرة على الاقتصاد ويطرح الكاتب الحل بالتدخل الحكومي الكبير وزيادة الانفاق بشكل كبير لتحريك الاقتصاد واعادته الى حالته الطبيعية وانهاء الكساد وزيادة الانفاق
ونحن الان في عام ٢٠١٨ نرى ان امريكا والصين وبعض الدول الاخرى التي اتبعت نصيحة الكاتب في زيادة الانفاق ولو بصورة اقل مما يطالب به الكاتب الا انها في الغالب تجاوزت الازمة اما من اتبع سياسة التقشف مثل اوروبا فلا زالت غارقة في اثار الازمة العالمية
ونحن الان في عام ٢٠١٨ نرى ان امريكا والصين وبعض الدول الاخرى التي اتبعت نصيحة الكاتب في زيادة الانفاق ولو بصورة اقل مما يطالب به الكاتب الا انها في الغالب تجاوزت الازمة اما من اتبع سياسة التقشف مثل اوروبا فلا زالت غارقة في اثار الازمة العالمية
May 29, 2012
That the developed world has been caught in a perfectly foreseeable, avoidable, solvable slump for four years now is so stupid it would be funny if it weren't so sad. Millions of man-years have been thrown away as the result of economic policies that shouldn't have passed the laugh test in an age where anyone can pick up a book on the Great Depression and read about what went wrong. Yet here we are, trillions of dollars poorer than we should be, standing by as elected leaders make decisions on faulty, imagined, or no evidence at all. Krugman is a lot more calm when he discusses these things and those people than I would be, and even though his perfectly reasonable prescriptions for economic recovery have an uphill climb to the lofty heights of discourse where real decisions get made, the fact that they are so straightforward and sensible gives me some hope for the future. This book is largely a synthesis of material from the past few years on his blog cleaned up, re-ordered, and organized, which would be somewhat disappointing if the material were not so strong. It reminds me of his earlier The Return of Depression Economics in its subject-hopping structure, but with a somewhat stronger central narrative in the vein of The Conscience of a Liberal. The book tackles many subjects familiar to frequent blog readers: the roots of the crisis; failures of monetary policy; the inadequacy of the stimulus; the roots and remedies for the Euromess; lessons of the Great Depression; and the illogic of conservative doctrines like "expansionary austerity", the "confidence fairy", and "immaculate inflation". Its prescriptions are those that have been tested by history: more direct public infrastructure spending, aid to states (or countries in the case of Europe), accommodative monetary policy including a temporarily higher inflation target, and better trade and environmental policy. As he discusses and refutes objections to his analyses, the Republican Party is a frequent object of criticism, as are clueless European leaders, the finance-industrial complex, economists who have been either misinformed or unhelpful, and fatuous pundits. Krugman has been criticized for his dismissive tone towards people he disagrees with, and while he doesn't ever call someone an idiot outright here, he certainly doesn't spare feelings. Since I happen to agree with his analysis I don't mind when he calls someone out, but I would hope that readers of other political persuasions could concentrate rebuttals on disagreements over any of the facts he talks about and not get hung up over a dismissive tone or academic nerd burns. One of the things that should be obvious to everyone is that no one is helped by this recession-verging-on-depression, and we should all be looking for ways to solve this crisis without regard to the affiliation of who's proposed the solutions. Everyone has a stake in future prosperity, because a rising tide might lift all boats, but an ebbing tide will surely sink many. Krugman doesn't have quite the soaring rhetoric of his hero Keynes, but in clarity and rigor he should certainly be considered on the same plane. Here's hoping that important people check this book out, and that they will have the "Rooseveltian resolve" to take the courageous steps we need to get people back to work.
May 22, 2015
Este libro del famoso economista keynesiano ganador del premio nobel del 2008 Krugman se trata de un pequeño ensayo en el cual formula su propuesta para terminar con la depresión que comenzó en el 2008 en la cual se basa en el aumento del gasto público y la creación del empleo. Hace un análisis del origen de la crisis basado en la burbuja hipotecaria y las políticas por parte de la reserva federal basadas en el control del tipo de interés que intentaron disminuir el efecto pero en vano.
Su propuesta se basa en aumentar el gasto público para generar empleos que según Krugman es el estímulo necesario para reactivar la economía, entre otras cosas, apuesta a una alta inflación para combatir la deuda y evitar la deflación, a pesar de que Obama (se hace notar que Krugman es partidario de este y que le tiene terror a los republicanos) en su primer período presidencial aplicó políticas similares para la generación de empleo (algo más de 700 mil millones de dólares en gasto), esto no fue suficiente para reactivar la economía y la opinión de Krugman al respecto es lo siguiente: "El gasto público no fue suficiente", también demuestra como empíricamente el aumento del gasto público reactiva la economía, lamentablemente sus ejemplos se dan a cabo en eventos donde Estados Unidos estaba en guerra.
El ensayo es bueno para entender algo más sobre el origen de la crisis global que aún sufrimos en la actualidad, entender más sobre las políticas keynesianas de las que Krugman es partidario y además de las críticas que hace Krugman hacia otras escuelas de economía que permite entender más o menos como es el entorno de opiniones económicas que se presenta en Estados Unidos.
Viviendo en un país como lo es Venezuela, obviamente no estoy muy de acuerdo con las propuestas que ofrece este profesor de economía, sobretodo porque han sido aplicadas desde que comenzó la era "democrática" en donde los presidentes se encargaban más de aumentar el gasto público pero esto debido a la bonanza petrolera que tenía el país, como sabemos y la historia ha demostrado este tipo de políticas, a pesar de que a corto plazo si logra genera empleo, crean una burbuja que al explotar trae graves consecuencias a largo plazo y que como conocemos en Venezuela no hemos superado aún.
Hace tiempo había leído el libro de Hazlitt "Economía en una lección" donde explica el tipo de falacias que presentan keynesianos como Krugman, también Bastiat en el siglo 19 en su obra "Sofismas económicos" describe algunas de ellas (antes de que naciera el mismo Keynes incluso).
De todos modos es interesante leer propuestas de diferentes escuela de economía, sienda esta una más cercana a las teorías marxistas y de estado de bienestar.
Su propuesta se basa en aumentar el gasto público para generar empleos que según Krugman es el estímulo necesario para reactivar la economía, entre otras cosas, apuesta a una alta inflación para combatir la deuda y evitar la deflación, a pesar de que Obama (se hace notar que Krugman es partidario de este y que le tiene terror a los republicanos) en su primer período presidencial aplicó políticas similares para la generación de empleo (algo más de 700 mil millones de dólares en gasto), esto no fue suficiente para reactivar la economía y la opinión de Krugman al respecto es lo siguiente: "El gasto público no fue suficiente", también demuestra como empíricamente el aumento del gasto público reactiva la economía, lamentablemente sus ejemplos se dan a cabo en eventos donde Estados Unidos estaba en guerra.
El ensayo es bueno para entender algo más sobre el origen de la crisis global que aún sufrimos en la actualidad, entender más sobre las políticas keynesianas de las que Krugman es partidario y además de las críticas que hace Krugman hacia otras escuelas de economía que permite entender más o menos como es el entorno de opiniones económicas que se presenta en Estados Unidos.
Viviendo en un país como lo es Venezuela, obviamente no estoy muy de acuerdo con las propuestas que ofrece este profesor de economía, sobretodo porque han sido aplicadas desde que comenzó la era "democrática" en donde los presidentes se encargaban más de aumentar el gasto público pero esto debido a la bonanza petrolera que tenía el país, como sabemos y la historia ha demostrado este tipo de políticas, a pesar de que a corto plazo si logra genera empleo, crean una burbuja que al explotar trae graves consecuencias a largo plazo y que como conocemos en Venezuela no hemos superado aún.
Hace tiempo había leído el libro de Hazlitt "Economía en una lección" donde explica el tipo de falacias que presentan keynesianos como Krugman, también Bastiat en el siglo 19 en su obra "Sofismas económicos" describe algunas de ellas (antes de que naciera el mismo Keynes incluso).
De todos modos es interesante leer propuestas de diferentes escuela de economía, sienda esta una más cercana a las teorías marxistas y de estado de bienestar.
March 11, 2013
I probably should have actually read END THIS DEPRESSION NOW! instead of listening to the audiobook version. Not only could I not see the multiple charts Krugman cites, but my mind also wanders more easily during the dry segments. I figured I listen to enough political podcasts that I could trust myself to pay attention, but nope. Half way through an explanation on the dangerous economic side effects transferring to the Euro caused Greece and Spain, my stupid brain starts wondering about the last movie Angelina Jolie showed her boobs in (Original Sin? Taking Lives maybe...does Beowulf count?). It's like my brain doesn't realize how imperative it is that I pay attention to this stuff; because any second of the day my conservative friends and cousins could be posting unfunny tea-party memes on facebook, and the fate of our nation's future lies in the quality of my response posts debunking them.
Strangely, I think I was actually more attentive listening to Thomas Sowell's THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST (despite Sowell's ability to make Ben Stein seem as animated as Jim Carrey). But that was more because BUST was so jaw dropping in its up-is-down conservative claims, I couldn't help but pay attention. Krugman's latest is more a repeated call for Keynesian stimulus, and repeated critiques of the ineffective and harmful results of austerity. If THEY LIVE type glasses existed to decode subliminal intent, each page of this would read: I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO.
Strangely, I think I was actually more attentive listening to Thomas Sowell's THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST (despite Sowell's ability to make Ben Stein seem as animated as Jim Carrey). But that was more because BUST was so jaw dropping in its up-is-down conservative claims, I couldn't help but pay attention. Krugman's latest is more a repeated call for Keynesian stimulus, and repeated critiques of the ineffective and harmful results of austerity. If THEY LIVE type glasses existed to decode subliminal intent, each page of this would read: I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO.
January 21, 2021
4.5 stars.
Published four years after the 2008 recession to comment on various governments’ responses and attempts at recovery, in End This Depression Now! the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman gives the New Keynesian case for stimulus and government spending as an antidote to periods of economic depression. Although almost a decade old, for obvious reasons it seems pertinent now in these COVID-ridden times.
I enjoyed this much more than Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics, particularly in terms of writing style, structured argumentation, and persuasiveness. Krugman demonstrates the truth of what he says primarily through case studies and historical precedents without coming across as overly partisan (though, to his credit, he also states his biases and demonstrates self-awareness). Although economists have a particular penchant for graphs, Krugman has managed to restrain himself in this respect to illustrative examples of key trends (in GDP, employment, surplus/deficits etc.) that can be easily understood by the layperson while still accommodating space for educating the reader in the necessary entry-level economic principles. Krugman stresses at the end that, even if only a few are (at least somewhat) persuaded by the book, it will have been worth it: I can honestly say that I went in with an open mind, and came out pretty much convinced.
Crucially, Krugman does not keep the discussion purely theoretical or ‘armchair’, and is keen to show the tangible impact of the wrong policies beyond hard figures like employment and GDP, showing the human cost in ways that are not immediately apparent, and that threaten long-term repercussions. He explains eloquently how unemployment grinds down feelings of self-worth and dignity, and he shines a spotlight on the egregious and unnecessary laying-off of schoolteachers and other public sector workers. While not strictly scientific, Krugman understands the importance of this aspect of the economic story: he knows how to communicate economic consequences in a way that will resonate with the average reader — and how to express the difference between cost and value.
He is also, despite his own political leanings, critical of the failures of government on both sides: on the left, the problem seems to be a bit of lily-livered-ness: in short, Krugman explains that Obama (a politician whom Krugman has both highly praised and fiercely criticised) had the right idea but simply did not go far enough, resulting in an unfortunate initial drop in GDP and investment through a lack of confidence rather than the much much-hoped-for rise. Ben Bernanke is accused of losing a similar game of chicken, showing clear-mindedness of the policy evidence for economic recovery, and then failing to implement it once he took charge of the Fed. The most obvious way to stimulate spending is by giving money to those in dire need, who will inevitably spend it with haste: clearly this is a point we could learn from in the current pandemic.
Obviously the right do not go unscathed, being the main culprits of the disaster we then found ourselves in: as a Brit, I certainly felt his criticisms of the UK government of the time were on point: we experienced a slow recovery from the recession under the Conservative Party’s austerity cuts, which were reflective more of an ideological aversion to ‘handouts’ than an honest attempt at finding the best programme for recovery. You cannot, as then-Chancellor George Osborne once reasoned, manage a nation’s economy as you would that of a household (obviously this is the key difference between micro- and macroeconomics) — sadly, I think they relied on the naivety of the average economically illiterate citizen to sell this narrative, with disastrous results. It was this same kind of attitude to the market that caused the global recession in the first place, after all, and one that is not even based on an alternative academic view — even Milton Friedman, who died in 2006, had begged conservatives to reconsider their approach.
However bad the state of the economy, Krugman provides a glimmer of hope: no depression is so bad that the right plan can’t pull us out of it. Krugman’s words here are so prescient of the current crisis, which is already starting to resemble a Groundhog Day-esque repeat of the last, that he could probably just publish a new edition with a 2020/1-themed chapter tacked on.
Published four years after the 2008 recession to comment on various governments’ responses and attempts at recovery, in End This Depression Now! the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman gives the New Keynesian case for stimulus and government spending as an antidote to periods of economic depression. Although almost a decade old, for obvious reasons it seems pertinent now in these COVID-ridden times.
I enjoyed this much more than Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics, particularly in terms of writing style, structured argumentation, and persuasiveness. Krugman demonstrates the truth of what he says primarily through case studies and historical precedents without coming across as overly partisan (though, to his credit, he also states his biases and demonstrates self-awareness). Although economists have a particular penchant for graphs, Krugman has managed to restrain himself in this respect to illustrative examples of key trends (in GDP, employment, surplus/deficits etc.) that can be easily understood by the layperson while still accommodating space for educating the reader in the necessary entry-level economic principles. Krugman stresses at the end that, even if only a few are (at least somewhat) persuaded by the book, it will have been worth it: I can honestly say that I went in with an open mind, and came out pretty much convinced.
Crucially, Krugman does not keep the discussion purely theoretical or ‘armchair’, and is keen to show the tangible impact of the wrong policies beyond hard figures like employment and GDP, showing the human cost in ways that are not immediately apparent, and that threaten long-term repercussions. He explains eloquently how unemployment grinds down feelings of self-worth and dignity, and he shines a spotlight on the egregious and unnecessary laying-off of schoolteachers and other public sector workers. While not strictly scientific, Krugman understands the importance of this aspect of the economic story: he knows how to communicate economic consequences in a way that will resonate with the average reader — and how to express the difference between cost and value.
He is also, despite his own political leanings, critical of the failures of government on both sides: on the left, the problem seems to be a bit of lily-livered-ness: in short, Krugman explains that Obama (a politician whom Krugman has both highly praised and fiercely criticised) had the right idea but simply did not go far enough, resulting in an unfortunate initial drop in GDP and investment through a lack of confidence rather than the much much-hoped-for rise. Ben Bernanke is accused of losing a similar game of chicken, showing clear-mindedness of the policy evidence for economic recovery, and then failing to implement it once he took charge of the Fed. The most obvious way to stimulate spending is by giving money to those in dire need, who will inevitably spend it with haste: clearly this is a point we could learn from in the current pandemic.
Obviously the right do not go unscathed, being the main culprits of the disaster we then found ourselves in: as a Brit, I certainly felt his criticisms of the UK government of the time were on point: we experienced a slow recovery from the recession under the Conservative Party’s austerity cuts, which were reflective more of an ideological aversion to ‘handouts’ than an honest attempt at finding the best programme for recovery. You cannot, as then-Chancellor George Osborne once reasoned, manage a nation’s economy as you would that of a household (obviously this is the key difference between micro- and macroeconomics) — sadly, I think they relied on the naivety of the average economically illiterate citizen to sell this narrative, with disastrous results. It was this same kind of attitude to the market that caused the global recession in the first place, after all, and one that is not even based on an alternative academic view — even Milton Friedman, who died in 2006, had begged conservatives to reconsider their approach.
However bad the state of the economy, Krugman provides a glimmer of hope: no depression is so bad that the right plan can’t pull us out of it. Krugman’s words here are so prescient of the current crisis, which is already starting to resemble a Groundhog Day-esque repeat of the last, that he could probably just publish a new edition with a 2020/1-themed chapter tacked on.
May 1, 2020
Som kronisk gnier har jeg fått litt vondt i magen hver gang prisene på de ulike krisepakkene i forbindelse med koronakrisen har blitt nevnt i mediene. Sånn sett er «End This Depression Now» en veldig god kur mot det – gjennom 250 sider argumenterer Paul Krugman om hvorfor motkonjunkturpolitikk er den rette veien å gå, og hvorfor «trickle down economics» er en oppskrift på katastrofe.
I likhet med Jens Stoltenberg har også jeg min eneste trosbekjennelse til nettopp keynesianismen, og i så måte jo det å lese denne boken for meg litt som en kristen leser Bibelen. Samtidig er det påfallende hvor rett Krugman har i nærmest alle spådommene sine som han kom med da boken ble skrevet i 2012 om hvordan økonomien i USA og EU vil utvikle seg med mindre man fikk et skifte i den økonomiske politikken – noe som ikke kom, og her står vi igjen med gjørme til livet. Krugman skriver lakonisk mot slutten av boken at han har lite tro på at verden har lært til neste resesjon eller depresjon – men det er jo alltid et håp om at man kan lære til krisen etter der igjen.
Og forresten: Hva er greien med at det er mye gøyere å lese pensumlitteratur når man gjør det helt frivillig?
I likhet med Jens Stoltenberg har også jeg min eneste trosbekjennelse til nettopp keynesianismen, og i så måte jo det å lese denne boken for meg litt som en kristen leser Bibelen. Samtidig er det påfallende hvor rett Krugman har i nærmest alle spådommene sine som han kom med da boken ble skrevet i 2012 om hvordan økonomien i USA og EU vil utvikle seg med mindre man fikk et skifte i den økonomiske politikken – noe som ikke kom, og her står vi igjen med gjørme til livet. Krugman skriver lakonisk mot slutten av boken at han har lite tro på at verden har lært til neste resesjon eller depresjon – men det er jo alltid et håp om at man kan lære til krisen etter der igjen.
Og forresten: Hva er greien med at det er mye gøyere å lese pensumlitteratur når man gjør det helt frivillig?
July 9, 2020
An impressive defense of the Keynesian consensus, some very informative bits on fiscal policy and austerity, in a time when the world needed to listen. However, it’s important to note that Krugman was wrong- spending kept decreasing but jobs grew- the problem was partly structural, it wasn’t all magneto trouble, as he says. That could partly be explained by QE, but on a larger scale, he got the future wrong. He’s also excessively dismissive of policies from the right wing, and such dismissal of an enormous school of economics is never actually reasonable.
December 15, 2014
This isn't really a three-star book, but I gave it three stars because I've been a reader of Paul Krugman's columns for the last few years now, and basically all the points made in End This Depression Now! are ones that he's been writing about for all that time. The book is all in one place, and it's a continuous narrative with an index, so for people who haven't read Krugman's output, there's plenty of information here.
The basic argument of End This Depression Now! is that the problems with the American economy--and it's mostly focused on America, with a brief foray into Europe and some notes about Japan, though not as much as in The Return of Depression-Era Economics and the Crisis of 2008--are large, but not unsolvable. They could easily be solved if people were willing to take the proper Keynesian actions to fix them.
Aim for increased inflation, since we're in a liquidity trap where rates want to go lower than they are now, but they can't, because after a certain point you can always just stash money in the mattress. Embark on a program of government stimulus, because the arguments about crowding out private spending would require private spending to crowd out, and anyway it would be easy ("easy") to just put the stimulus in the form of making up state budget shortfalls, allowing them to rehire public servants and put over a million people back to work. Provide mortgage relief, because a bunch of underwater homeowners and a glut of unsold homes doesn't help anyone at all.
Reading this at the end of 2014, of course, we can tell that none of this happened. The economy kind of just continued along and is approaching something more like normal, though the statistics mask how bad things are because the labor force participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1978. The pressure is still on at the Fed to raise rates, though Krugman has since said that he thinks it's unlikely. And Europe and Japan are still mired in the doldrums, in Europe due to lack of much action and in Japan due to a tax increase offsetting the increase of inflation.
I actually think the major point Krugman makes in End This Depression Now! isn't about specific policies at all, but rather about the general attitude toward economics. Most people see large-scale economics in one of two frames. The first is as just a scaled up version of household economics, where spending money that you don't have on hand is a bad idea and going into debt is always a scary thing that should be carefully considered. And this is reasonable, if your family is immortal and can legally print money. Though I guess the latter isn't universally applicable, considering the Euro area.
The second is as a morality play, where recessions and depressions are punishments fromG-d AlmightyThe Invisible Hand for profligacy and free spending, and so countries have to expunge their sins through austerian repentance and any attempt to get around their proper chastising is immoral. Somewhat related to this is the fear of doing any kind of stimulus because somewhere, somehow, someone who doesn't "deserve" the money will get free money. It's the same attitude that leads to drug testing for welfare recipients even though it wastes more money than it saves and treating drug addiction as a criminal problem instead of a public health problem is in itself immoral.
Both of these viewpoints have little or nothing to do with how economics works. As Krugman points out, Greece (the usual our-economy-will-implode example) was running high budget deficits before the troubles, but Spain and Ireland both had low debt and budget surpluses before they fell into recession, because the market has the same relation to human morality that Cthulhu does.
At this point, with the incoming Congress likely to spend most of its time trying to impeach Obama or repeal Obamacare, it's obvious that none of Krugman's suggestions in this book will ever be implemented, so End This Depression Now! is more of a curiosity at this point. It actually left me with the impression that Keynesianism might be fatally flawed. Not because its conclusions are wrong, but because it's seemingly so difficult for people to follow them.
At this point, I think the only hope we have is to look forward to a political change in 2016, but even then the Washington Consensus is strong enough that I doubt anything major will change. And based on the conclusions in Capital in the 21st Century, then future growth is almost certain to be small throughout the developed world, and what we have now is the new normal. A cheery thought.
The basic argument of End This Depression Now! is that the problems with the American economy--and it's mostly focused on America, with a brief foray into Europe and some notes about Japan, though not as much as in The Return of Depression-Era Economics and the Crisis of 2008--are large, but not unsolvable. They could easily be solved if people were willing to take the proper Keynesian actions to fix them.
Aim for increased inflation, since we're in a liquidity trap where rates want to go lower than they are now, but they can't, because after a certain point you can always just stash money in the mattress. Embark on a program of government stimulus, because the arguments about crowding out private spending would require private spending to crowd out, and anyway it would be easy ("easy") to just put the stimulus in the form of making up state budget shortfalls, allowing them to rehire public servants and put over a million people back to work. Provide mortgage relief, because a bunch of underwater homeowners and a glut of unsold homes doesn't help anyone at all.
Reading this at the end of 2014, of course, we can tell that none of this happened. The economy kind of just continued along and is approaching something more like normal, though the statistics mask how bad things are because the labor force participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1978. The pressure is still on at the Fed to raise rates, though Krugman has since said that he thinks it's unlikely. And Europe and Japan are still mired in the doldrums, in Europe due to lack of much action and in Japan due to a tax increase offsetting the increase of inflation.
I actually think the major point Krugman makes in End This Depression Now! isn't about specific policies at all, but rather about the general attitude toward economics. Most people see large-scale economics in one of two frames. The first is as just a scaled up version of household economics, where spending money that you don't have on hand is a bad idea and going into debt is always a scary thing that should be carefully considered. And this is reasonable, if your family is immortal and can legally print money. Though I guess the latter isn't universally applicable, considering the Euro area.
The second is as a morality play, where recessions and depressions are punishments from
Both of these viewpoints have little or nothing to do with how economics works. As Krugman points out, Greece (the usual our-economy-will-implode example) was running high budget deficits before the troubles, but Spain and Ireland both had low debt and budget surpluses before they fell into recession, because the market has the same relation to human morality that Cthulhu does.
At this point, with the incoming Congress likely to spend most of its time trying to impeach Obama or repeal Obamacare, it's obvious that none of Krugman's suggestions in this book will ever be implemented, so End This Depression Now! is more of a curiosity at this point. It actually left me with the impression that Keynesianism might be fatally flawed. Not because its conclusions are wrong, but because it's seemingly so difficult for people to follow them.
At this point, I think the only hope we have is to look forward to a political change in 2016, but even then the Washington Consensus is strong enough that I doubt anything major will change. And based on the conclusions in Capital in the 21st Century, then future growth is almost certain to be small throughout the developed world, and what we have now is the new normal. A cheery thought.
November 26, 2015
Хорошая книга, как экономисту по образованию, было интересно прочитать.
На доступном языке автор раскладывает по полкам свою теорию о причинах предыдущего кризиса в Америке и в Европе, но думаю и сейчас это актуально.
Основная идея, что в кризис надо больше тратить, чем экономить и резать расходы. "Твой расход - это чей-то доход". Он призывает, не боятся бюджетного дефицита. Здесь у него есть оговорки, которые касаются, например, банковских ставок, в Америки, как мы знаем, они низкие, поэтому там это более проще сделать.
Но стимулировать спрос возможно также, снижая налоговую нагрузку на экономику.
Снижая затраты сейчас, государство получит более высокий уровень безработицы и, соответственно, меньше поступлений в бюджет(налогов). Стоимость денег уменьшается и находясь на депозите, не работая, субъект теряет больше, чем накапливает. Очень похоже с Компан��ями, не инвестируя в рабочий капитал, не получишь большего дохода, деньги должны работать. В принципе и к людям можно отнести, если деньги просто лежат на депозите, этот процент со временем съест инфляция.
Напоследок, цитирую, очень показательный пример из обычной жизни, как случается кризис:
"Эта история впервые появилась на страницах журнала «Journal of Money, Credit and Banking». Статья Джоан и Ричарда Суини называлась «Монетаристская теория и великий кризис кооператива нянек с Капитолийского холма» («Monetary Theory and the Great Capitol Hill Baby Sitting Co-op crisis»). Авторы поведали о собственном опыте. Супруги Суини были членами кооператива нянь, объединявшего около 150 молодых пар, преимущественно служащих конгресса, которые экономили деньги на нянях, присматривая за детьми друг друга.
Серьезным преимуществом кооператива оказалась относительно большая численность его членов, поскольку шансы найти няню на вечер, который родители хотели провести в��е дома, были высоки. Впрочем, существовала и проблема. Как убедиться в том, что каждая супружеская пара в равной степени участвует в работе кооператива?
Решение было найдено – им стала система сертификатов. Вступавшим в кооператив супружеским парам выдавали по 20 купонов, каждый из которых соответствовал получасу работы няни. (При выходе из кооператива требовалось вернуть столько же купонов.) За работу в качестве няни родители выдавали соответствующее число купонов. Благодаря такой системе каждая супружеская пара оказывала столько же услуг, сколько получала, поскольку отданные купоны требовалось восполнять.
И все-таки со временем у кооператива нянь начались сложности. Большинство родителей стремились иметь определенный запас купонов на тот случай, если услуги няни потребуются несколько раз кряду. По причинам, в которые нет смысла углубляться, в какой-то момент число находящихся в обращении купонов оказалось значительно меньше, чем желали члены кооператива.
Как развивались события? Супруги, встревоженные истощением запаса купонов, старались сидеть дома, пока не пополнят его, присматривая за чужими детьми. Но ведь другие родители поступали точно так же! Возможность заработать купоны уменьшилась. Это привело к тому, что супружеские пары, испытывавшие нехватку купонов, стали еще реже проводить вечера вне дома, и объем оказываемых кооперативом услуг резко сократился.
Короче говоря, в кооперативе нянь началась депрессия, продолжавшаяся до тех пор, пока экономисты из числа членов этой организации не убедили правление выпустить дополнительные купоны.
Какие выводы можно сделать из этой истории? Если вы скажете, что никакие, поскольку история донельзя банальна, пусть вам будет стыдно. Кооператив нянь с Капитолийского холма – это реальный пример монетаризма, только в миниатюре. У него отсутствуют многие черты системы, которую мы называем мировой экономикой, но имеется одна особенность, очень важная для понимания того, что с мировой экономикой произошло, – особенность, которую, похоже, никак не могут понять политики и высокопоставленные чиновники.
О чем идет речь? О простом факте: ваши расходы – это мои доходы, а мои расходы – ваши доходы"
На доступном языке автор раскладывает по полкам свою теорию о причинах предыдущего кризиса в Америке и в Европе, но думаю и сейчас это актуально.
Основная идея, что в кризис надо больше тратить, чем экономить и резать расходы. "Твой расход - это чей-то доход". Он призывает, не боятся бюджетного дефицита. Здесь у него есть оговорки, которые касаются, например, банковских ставок, в Америки, как мы знаем, они низкие, поэтому там это более проще сделать.
Но стимулировать спрос возможно также, снижая налоговую нагрузку на экономику.
Снижая затраты сейчас, государство получит более высокий уровень безработицы и, соответственно, меньше поступлений в бюджет(налогов). Стоимость денег уменьшается и находясь на депозите, не работая, субъект теряет больше, чем накапливает. Очень похоже с Компан��ями, не инвестируя в рабочий капитал, не получишь большего дохода, деньги должны работать. В принципе и к людям можно отнести, если деньги просто лежат на депозите, этот процент со временем съест инфляция.
Напоследок, цитирую, очень показательный пример из обычной жизни, как случается кризис:
"Эта история впервые появилась на страницах журнала «Journal of Money, Credit and Banking». Статья Джоан и Ричарда Суини называлась «Монетаристская теория и великий кризис кооператива нянек с Капитолийского холма» («Monetary Theory and the Great Capitol Hill Baby Sitting Co-op crisis»). Авторы поведали о собственном опыте. Супруги Суини были членами кооператива нянь, объединявшего около 150 молодых пар, преимущественно служащих конгресса, которые экономили деньги на нянях, присматривая за детьми друг друга.
Серьезным преимуществом кооператива оказалась относительно большая численность его членов, поскольку шансы найти няню на вечер, который родители хотели провести в��е дома, были высоки. Впрочем, существовала и проблема. Как убедиться в том, что каждая супружеская пара в равной степени участвует в работе кооператива?
Решение было найдено – им стала система сертификатов. Вступавшим в кооператив супружеским парам выдавали по 20 купонов, каждый из которых соответствовал получасу работы няни. (При выходе из кооператива требовалось вернуть столько же купонов.) За работу в качестве няни родители выдавали соответствующее число купонов. Благодаря такой системе каждая супружеская пара оказывала столько же услуг, сколько получала, поскольку отданные купоны требовалось восполнять.
И все-таки со временем у кооператива нянь начались сложности. Большинство родителей стремились иметь определенный запас купонов на тот случай, если услуги няни потребуются несколько раз кряду. По причинам, в которые нет смысла углубляться, в какой-то момент число находящихся в обращении купонов оказалось значительно меньше, чем желали члены кооператива.
Как развивались события? Супруги, встревоженные истощением запаса купонов, старались сидеть дома, пока не пополнят его, присматривая за чужими детьми. Но ведь другие родители поступали точно так же! Возможность заработать купоны уменьшилась. Это привело к тому, что супружеские пары, испытывавшие нехватку купонов, стали еще реже проводить вечера вне дома, и объем оказываемых кооперативом услуг резко сократился.
Короче говоря, в кооперативе нянь началась депрессия, продолжавшаяся до тех пор, пока экономисты из числа членов этой организации не убедили правление выпустить дополнительные купоны.
Какие выводы можно сделать из этой истории? Если вы скажете, что никакие, поскольку история донельзя банальна, пусть вам будет стыдно. Кооператив нянь с Капитолийского холма – это реальный пример монетаризма, только в миниатюре. У него отсутствуют многие черты системы, которую мы называем мировой экономикой, но имеется одна особенность, очень важная для понимания того, что с мировой экономикой произошло, – особенность, которую, похоже, никак не могут понять политики и высокопоставленные чиновники.
О чем идет речь? О простом факте: ваши расходы – это мои доходы, а мои расходы – ваши доходы"
December 31, 2013
The author Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in
Economics, a columnist for the New York Times, and
a professor at Princeton University. He has written
an engaging book on how to end the unemployment crisis
which still includes some 24 million Americans without
jobs or underemployed at depression era rates, even
though the Great Recession technically ended years ago.
The nature of the disaster should not be mysterious at
all; he writes "...in the Great Depression leaders had
an excuse: nobody really understood what was happening
or how to fix it. Today's leaders don't have that excuse.
We have both the knowledge and the tools to end this
suffering." What is really needed to get out of this
current 'depression' is another burst of government
spending. And he asserts that it is really that simple,
but instead of delivering stimulus packages to restart
the economy and reduce unemployment, the government has
been prone to austerity, which simply prolongs and deepens
the state of a depressed job market. Large scale unemployment
leads to poor consumption of goods and services, which
results in a insufficient spending to spur growth
in the economy.
The anti-recession spending from the Obama administration
was insufficient to produce adequate recovery and resulted
in undermining the political case for more similar action.
But there is historical precedence for government spending
as a creator of jobs and family incomes that leads to enhanced
business activity and renewed economic growth. The economy
is basically stuck in a 'liquidity trap' where low interest
rates fail to consumption and stimulate the economy, situation
not uncommon immediately after an economic downturn.
In such cases, the government's public spending can save
the economy since the private sector has failed to provide
the spending for consumption and economic activity.
A major concern of government spending is public debt, but
Krugman argues that America’s debt is actually not that
dangerously high by historical or international standards.
He also points out that since America has its own currency
(unlike the countries of the European Union), it is able
to print money to service its own debt, thus preventing
the possibility of bankruptcy. Another fear is inflation,
but Krugman contends that inflation simply cannot rise in
a depressed economy (as the current situation attests),
and that when it is triggered during an economic upturn
the government can always reverse its policy to keep it
in check.
Krugman's book is non-technical, written in layman's
terms. But it covers important macroeconomic concepts
that are pertinent to understanding the current discourse
about the economic situation. Newspaper Headlines keep
appearing about increased levels of employment, but they
are far from adequate to describe a normal prosperous
economy. This book could be an important work in any
discussion about a possible solutions for unemployment
in this economy.
Economics, a columnist for the New York Times, and
a professor at Princeton University. He has written
an engaging book on how to end the unemployment crisis
which still includes some 24 million Americans without
jobs or underemployed at depression era rates, even
though the Great Recession technically ended years ago.
The nature of the disaster should not be mysterious at
all; he writes "...in the Great Depression leaders had
an excuse: nobody really understood what was happening
or how to fix it. Today's leaders don't have that excuse.
We have both the knowledge and the tools to end this
suffering." What is really needed to get out of this
current 'depression' is another burst of government
spending. And he asserts that it is really that simple,
but instead of delivering stimulus packages to restart
the economy and reduce unemployment, the government has
been prone to austerity, which simply prolongs and deepens
the state of a depressed job market. Large scale unemployment
leads to poor consumption of goods and services, which
results in a insufficient spending to spur growth
in the economy.
The anti-recession spending from the Obama administration
was insufficient to produce adequate recovery and resulted
in undermining the political case for more similar action.
But there is historical precedence for government spending
as a creator of jobs and family incomes that leads to enhanced
business activity and renewed economic growth. The economy
is basically stuck in a 'liquidity trap' where low interest
rates fail to consumption and stimulate the economy, situation
not uncommon immediately after an economic downturn.
In such cases, the government's public spending can save
the economy since the private sector has failed to provide
the spending for consumption and economic activity.
A major concern of government spending is public debt, but
Krugman argues that America’s debt is actually not that
dangerously high by historical or international standards.
He also points out that since America has its own currency
(unlike the countries of the European Union), it is able
to print money to service its own debt, thus preventing
the possibility of bankruptcy. Another fear is inflation,
but Krugman contends that inflation simply cannot rise in
a depressed economy (as the current situation attests),
and that when it is triggered during an economic upturn
the government can always reverse its policy to keep it
in check.
Krugman's book is non-technical, written in layman's
terms. But it covers important macroeconomic concepts
that are pertinent to understanding the current discourse
about the economic situation. Newspaper Headlines keep
appearing about increased levels of employment, but they
are far from adequate to describe a normal prosperous
economy. This book could be an important work in any
discussion about a possible solutions for unemployment
in this economy.
May 13, 2012
After reading this book I have more motivation to write my crazy right-wing junior tea party congressman than I've ever had before, and to let him know how unhappy I am with his votes. This motivation has come from the clear reasoning of Krugman. This is not because Krugman is anti-Right, or ultra-Left, but because of how Krugman clearly lays out the intellectual deficiency among politicians as it relates to macroeconomic principles. These leaders are out of their league, and if I were them, I'd consult as many experts as I could, and at least read a good book now and again, like this book.
I highly recommend this book. Being an election year, there is great debate currently about the appropriate role of government, the appropriate size of government budget deficits, the appropriate amount of government spending programs, interest rates, exchange rates, European crisis, etc. Krugman addresses all of these subjects with an "Ending Depressions for Dummies" accessibility.
A simple review of history should be enough to educate the minds of curious leaders. If that's not enough evidence for a much more Keynesian approach, then surely the advice from well-respected economists will at least cause pause.
Yet the Right marches forward with austerity mindsets, based on fear, pride, obstructionism, and I can't tell exactly what else. There are many on this Right side of the aisle who disagree with his views. Still I'm personally waiting to see any justification for their disagreement with Krugman.
And again, it's not really a partisan book. Although there are definitely different "sides" of economists; Krugman is on one of those sides (the correct side of history, of course, when it comes to macroeconomic policy).
As far as writing styles, I always like Krugman in the press. He is excellent at writing articles. The only critical comment I have about this book is the dozen or so times he says things like "more on that later," or "which I'll address in the next chapter." I don't like to feel like I need to keep track of all of his former comments to tie them into ideas presented hours ago. I just want to read what he has to say. Either don't bring it up, or don't fear repeating yourself, is what I always say. Repetition perhaps is just what the Right needs to experience.
I highly recommend this book. Being an election year, there is great debate currently about the appropriate role of government, the appropriate size of government budget deficits, the appropriate amount of government spending programs, interest rates, exchange rates, European crisis, etc. Krugman addresses all of these subjects with an "Ending Depressions for Dummies" accessibility.
A simple review of history should be enough to educate the minds of curious leaders. If that's not enough evidence for a much more Keynesian approach, then surely the advice from well-respected economists will at least cause pause.
Yet the Right marches forward with austerity mindsets, based on fear, pride, obstructionism, and I can't tell exactly what else. There are many on this Right side of the aisle who disagree with his views. Still I'm personally waiting to see any justification for their disagreement with Krugman.
And again, it's not really a partisan book. Although there are definitely different "sides" of economists; Krugman is on one of those sides (the correct side of history, of course, when it comes to macroeconomic policy).
As far as writing styles, I always like Krugman in the press. He is excellent at writing articles. The only critical comment I have about this book is the dozen or so times he says things like "more on that later," or "which I'll address in the next chapter." I don't like to feel like I need to keep track of all of his former comments to tie them into ideas presented hours ago. I just want to read what he has to say. Either don't bring it up, or don't fear repeating yourself, is what I always say. Repetition perhaps is just what the Right needs to experience.
June 28, 2014
Minor downsides: 1)Sometimes Krugman will explain a concept in one paragraph and finish with a sentence like "But I've probably talked too much about this already, so let's move on." I assume he's acknowledging that his intended audience doesn't need total comprehension of every concept to get the points he makes and so in the spirit of space limitations and attention spans, ushers the crowd forward. To me, it felt more "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
2)Krugman also sneaks in some gratuitous sass in the direction of the American Right; it's not a terrible amount, but I prefer to avoid that in my demi-academic reads. Also, I feel like it will further turn off right-leaning folks who could jive with his analysis.
3)I wish all writers would include a list of sources and further reading.
Upside: everything else. Quick, readable diction. Excellent suggestions and responses to potential/typical qualms with those suggestions.
2)Krugman also sneaks in some gratuitous sass in the direction of the American Right; it's not a terrible amount, but I prefer to avoid that in my demi-academic reads. Also, I feel like it will further turn off right-leaning folks who could jive with his analysis.
3)I wish all writers would include a list of sources and further reading.
Upside: everything else. Quick, readable diction. Excellent suggestions and responses to potential/typical qualms with those suggestions.
December 15, 2012
So disappointing I couldn't finish. It got good reviews and readers wrote about the author's objectivity. He made some good points, however in bring up the counter arguments, he only raised the easily refutable. He didn't address some of the really sticky points, as if they didn't exist. His tone implied that anyone those who have a differing view are just ignoring the obvious.
Anyway, as I listened to his points, I kept wanting to ask questions so I could fully understand his view and consequently make an informed opinion. As I got further along, there were more infuriatingly unanswered questions. I'd love to talk with Krugman in person, because I think, on a topic like this, I'd benefit more from an interchange than a lecture.
Anyway, as I listened to his points, I kept wanting to ask questions so I could fully understand his view and consequently make an informed opinion. As I got further along, there were more infuriatingly unanswered questions. I'd love to talk with Krugman in person, because I think, on a topic like this, I'd benefit more from an interchange than a lecture.
March 1, 2016
Great book, probably one of the best reads on how to fix the economy. I’ve read several of Krugman’s past books, and this is really the first one that I felt really talked at a level most people could understand. I have no doubt Krugman’s assessment of the situation is dead on and his solutions are solid. However, I also have no doubt that the ignorant people with self serving views outnumber those who really want to work towards solutions. Krugman ties in several authors that I have read, and many of the conclusions I had also considered. I most enjoyed how the book expanded on my thoughts and added insight I had yet to have considered.
July 26, 2015
There are quite a few interesting economic theories being thrown in as support for the recommendations of this book but I don't think these theories and findings built a cohesive story to justify the call to action in the book. After the read, the book feels closer to something loosely put together to support the political goal, rather than something with a greater and more noble cause. As the title put it, it is a literal and economic attack on each of the issues that Paul Krugman think is perpetuating/prolonging the recession and/or slowing the recovery process. Rather disappointing I will say.
August 14, 2015
I don't understand where the "neo" in "neo-keynesianism" comes from. I don't know much about it, but this sounds pretty much like the old Keynesianism to me. A bit more empirical evidence would be nice. This book reads like an opinion piece in which the argument sounds intuitively like it might be true so the reader should buy it. The happenings in the great depression are the only thing presented as empirical evidence. I would prefer a little more data.
January 7, 2016
ماذا تفعل الحكومات عندما تحدث ازمة اقتصادية
رد الفعل المتأخر لا يفرق كتير عن رد الفعل الخطا
عدم احكام الررقابة ع الاسواق ادى لازمة 2008 و جشع وول ستريت ايضا
للاسف بقينا ف زمن ممكن دول تجوع و تنتهي لمجرد افلاس بنك و ليس وباء او حرب او زلزال مدمر.
حرية السوق لا تعني تخلي الحكومات عن الرقابة و المشاركة لدفعه للامام كذلك الانفاق وقت الكساد لتشجيع الاخرين
....
العلاج بالصدمة و ترك السوق يحل مشاكله بنفسه لم يعد ف هذا الزمن
....
مرحبا بكينز مرة اخرى
رد الفعل المتأخر لا يفرق كتير عن رد الفعل الخطا
عدم احكام الررقابة ع الاسواق ادى لازمة 2008 و جشع وول ستريت ايضا
للاسف بقينا ف زمن ممكن دول تجوع و تنتهي لمجرد افلاس بنك و ليس وباء او حرب او زلزال مدمر.
حرية السوق لا تعني تخلي الحكومات عن الرقابة و المشاركة لدفعه للامام كذلك الانفاق وقت الكساد لتشجيع الاخرين
....
العلاج بالصدمة و ترك السوق يحل مشاكله بنفسه لم يعد ف هذا الزمن
....
مرحبا بكينز مرة اخرى
September 10, 2014
It’s the most terrible book I have ever seen. It is just like the rubbish. No body will like it.if you read this book you will feel sick and uncomfortable.just like the rubbish in the bin. It’s really bad. I don’t know why the writer wrote such a book.this book is just like my friend Rick I can’t stand him and this book.
September 12, 2014
This book is mainly about economics.The accurate number in this book is very useful to me. However, it is not useful to any sane man. The very idea that humans are “rational” sits uncomfortably with me. Economics is the dismal and boring science. So you need to be patient enough to come across this book.But when you finish it,you will be a professior of invest.
February 29, 2016
This is a book worth reading, as long as you're prepared for 90% of the length of the book devoted to Krugman defending his posture from criticism and different economic and political views. It did give me a basic understanding of some modern economics issues and the book suggests a clear strategy for getting out of the current depression.
Read
April 4, 2020End This Depression Now as I read it in the times of lockdowns forced upon many countries across the globe by this Corona Pandemic, I feel the economic low that countries are already predicting to experience must read it.
By far, this book has been not just a book on what has caused the economic recession or rightly put, "Great Recession" of 2008. But it has gone on to suggest what could be done during times of such crisis. This particular idea is clearly and distinctly professed in the book as Krugman has put by saying that it is not good enough to know what causes a cancer. But it is important to devise ways to treat the cancer. That is what matters and it is succinct at this time when we are facing lockdowns and quarantines which is driving our economies to a slump. Due to this many are loosing their jobs. Especially toursim sectors are the hardest hit. And as is always the case, poorer sections of the society are bearing the brunt the most.
But as such, to keep everyone gainfully employed and to prevent layoffs, the government must do the needful. As the Keynesians believe lowered spending is not the solution now to keep the economy afloat. The government must spend and must be bold enough to bolster deficits for future growths, and regulation through policies- particularly fiscal- and through the lowering down of interest rates are some that brought the recession to cessation and may be this could be a panacea we might probably adopt at this time of the hour.
P.S: Environment boons from ceasing industrial activity for now is not the content of this book. 😊😊
By far, this book has been not just a book on what has caused the economic recession or rightly put, "Great Recession" of 2008. But it has gone on to suggest what could be done during times of such crisis. This particular idea is clearly and distinctly professed in the book as Krugman has put by saying that it is not good enough to know what causes a cancer. But it is important to devise ways to treat the cancer. That is what matters and it is succinct at this time when we are facing lockdowns and quarantines which is driving our economies to a slump. Due to this many are loosing their jobs. Especially toursim sectors are the hardest hit. And as is always the case, poorer sections of the society are bearing the brunt the most.
But as such, to keep everyone gainfully employed and to prevent layoffs, the government must do the needful. As the Keynesians believe lowered spending is not the solution now to keep the economy afloat. The government must spend and must be bold enough to bolster deficits for future growths, and regulation through policies- particularly fiscal- and through the lowering down of interest rates are some that brought the recession to cessation and may be this could be a panacea we might probably adopt at this time of the hour.
P.S: Environment boons from ceasing industrial activity for now is not the content of this book. 😊😊
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 411 reviews