He's your uncle right
You on board with his recommendations here (serious question)?
Not quite.
I don't read his blogs nearly as much as I use to. Brad DeLong in a lot of ways is the new Paul Krugman, while Krugman has went away from producing actual works of importance.
It would have been a good proposal a few years ago (For economic reasons, and political reasons). Going all Roosevelt on this bizness is something that he has advocated forever. This is nothing more than a dream, this will never happen. He has said multiple times that the stimulus didn't do nearly enough and should have been doubled. He wrote another article a day later on what could have been for the President -- He makes the point that the administration settled for what they thought they could get it, and again, did not do enough. Sounds crazy to most on this board. .. From his blog yesterday,
Second, the administration made what I continue to believe was the awful decision to pretend that the half-measures it was actually able to get were exactly right, not a penny too small. Would it have made a difference in 2010 if Obama had been able to say to the country, “I asked for more aid to the economy, but those guys blocked it, and that’s why we’re not recovering faster”?
Even says Obama has went to GOP rhetoric.
Since some time in the fall of 2009, Obama’s rhetorical stance has been basically that he’s like the GOP, but less so; can you even remember him offering a full-throated defense of Keynesian policies?
I think much of this could be accomplished without massive government intervention. The economic struggles are no where near the damn, even though in his mind, Krugman likes to think it as such.
Basically, like he has for years now, is proposing a new, New Deal. I don't like it because first and foremost, while training the unemployed and giving them jobs, we aren't going to have specialized contractors building these roads, and in the long haul would lead to the degradation of our infrastructure -- JMO. Government doesn't always mean better, and we are not Sweden or Finland.
I'm sure wages would also increase.
I also hate to say this, but he takes the more popular road in saying that all of the unemployed would absolutely love to work on roads and infrastructure...please. Again, a pipe-dream.
Bear in mind that the unemployed aren’t jobless because they don’t want to work, or because they lack the necessary skills. There’s nothing wrong with our workers — remember, just four years ago the unemployment rate was below 5 percent.
I think monetary stability is much more important than job creation at this point. And most of the creation should not come from massive projects. He seems to think both can be accomplished with sweeping legislation. Of course, this is present in all of his books, so nothing new. I will say that I was slightly shocked that he didn't touch on the vertical equity gap and gilded age rhetoric he usually regurgitates in all of his articles.
Rather than creating more institutions and proving the jobs, we should look to providing employers with resources to create the jobs. This is nothing more than a short-term, but unfortunately, not a long-term solution.
Housing rates and inflation point is slightly puzzling.
JMO.
