In his recent column for the New York Times, "Wasting Our Minds," Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman dissected Republican ideas on the economy, reminding us how the Youth of America is now wasting away under trickle-down economic policies. Here's an excerpt of the piece (spoiler alert: it may depress you if you are under the age of 30 and/or have mountains of student loans to pay off):
Let's start with some advice Mitt Romney gave to college students during an appearance last week. After denouncing President Obama's "divisiveness," the candidate told his audience, "Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business."
The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch — the distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren't born into affluent families, who can't rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad to finance their ambitions. But the rest of the remark is just as bad in its own way.
I mean, "get the education"? And pay for it how? Tuition at public colleges and universities has soared, in part thanks to sharp reductions in state aid. Mr. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is, however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would drastically cut federal student aid, causing roughly a million students to lose their Pell grants.
So how, exactly, are young people from cash-strapped families supposed to "get the education"? Back in March Mr. Romney had the answer: Find the college "that has a little lower price where you can get a good education." Good luck with that. But I guess it's divisive to point out that Mr. Romney's prescriptions are useless for Americans who weren't born with his advantages.
There is, however, a larger issue: even if students do manage, somehow, to "get the education," which they do all too often by incurring a lot of debt, they’ll be graduating into an economy that doesn’t seem to want them.
His solution to solving the never-ending flow of debt for young adults? “The opposite of what Mr. Romney and his friends want.”
Leave a Comment:
I'm originally a Californian, 25 years Aussie. This show seems to get better and better. I appreciated your comments ABOUT Krugman as much as I appreciated listening to his remarks.
Last night Norm Ornstein referred to mandatory voting in Australia. Combined with universal Medicare and government pensions, and low gun ownership, it's as if we're living in a parallel reality. I've only been an MSNBC junkie since the 2009 inauguration, and I've promised myself to go cold turkey after November. Every day I'm learning to have a little more distance, be a little less identified with the goings on. But wow, what a freak show it's been. Thanks for President Fox! cheers.
There's one very simple way to explain how we can revive the economy:
Income inequality is growing and more and more people are falling under the poverty line. This means that we have more and more people who are too poor to buy and consume goods which is the backbone of starting up a slowed economy. Government spending meant to aid the poor will mean they will have more money to consume and that will increase revenue to business, make businesses want to expand and ultimately create those jobs!
There may come a time where the economy is overstimulated in which the government will have to cut spending. But that is on the other side of the pendulum, and we can see that with the Fed interest rate at its lowest possible rate (less than 1%).
To sum up:
1. Help poor people.
2. Poor people will be able to buy more stuff.
3. Buying stuff stimulates the economy.
4. Profit and jobs.
Government spending goosed by excessive borrowing is now over 25% of our GDP, while the norm since the 50s has been only 19%. The Romney-Paul Ryan Economic plan calls for restricting the GROWTH of federal spending in the 10 year period ahead to 3.5 %. Is that good enough for you, or would you prefer we go to borrowing .50c of every dollar Obama wants to spend, instead of the .40c for every dollar at present?
Oh, and that Tax the millionaires and billionaires plan of Obama and the Democrat Party "progressives" would raise 4.7 billion dollars a year, or the amount we spend every 11 hours. It would take collecting that "fairness" tax 250 years to raise the tax coffers to retire just the next year of deficit spending underway by this Administration. Go figure, while denying the economic benefit that comes from capatalists investing those funds in entrepenurial startup businesses, and stock and bond offerings of our lrading corporations and also infrastructure building municipal and state bonds. Not to mention charitable contributions.
We tried ObamaNomics, and it gave us job losses, a shrinking labor force as people just stop trying to look for work (352,000 more dropped out this last month against 115,000 new jobs created by the private sector only, almost half of the true 16% unemployed and underemployed have been unemployed for over 6 months now). We are faltering after 3&1/2 years of spend and borrow at unprececidented rates, with an anemic 2%-2.5% tops annual growth rate and all the Obama apologists can say is we need to do more of borrowin, more spending, we need to do more of it!
Wow--Excellent interview w/Paul Krugman. I appreciated how Mr. Krugman explained the reason for this depression & that laying off teachers, police, fireman, etc. is not the solution. I agree, a jobs bill is desperately needed. Europe's economy has proven that continued tax cuts & austerity is not the remedy for this global recession.
A government funded "jobs" bill in an election year is simply a desire to turn on the juice of patronage dollars and greasing the wheel in the congressional districts the Democrat Party would need the funds to go to, as the disbursement of those funds would be under the control of the CZARS in place under the Obama Administration.
In short, they would be short term borrowed bucks from China, Japan, and other parts of the vibrant Pacific nations that buy our tainted debt spent to buy votes; their would be no lasting value or jobs pointed to, just as their weren't under the $240 billion of the $787 Billion deficit financed Stimulus passed by a Democrat controlled Congress and signed into law by the newly installed Obama before he was even sure of his arse fit the chair behind the Oval Desk. Those stimulus dollars were meant to secure the 2010 Congressional Election, and they were mostly ill spent, and in vain as a blowback of anger over the spending excesses and dangerous levels of deficit gave us the Tea Party and the ouster of moderate Democrats in Congress that had to go along to get along, and the subsequent loss of control of the House of Representatives.
Visit your Wal Marts, visit your Fast Food Resteurants, your Supermarkets, visit your neighborhood Movie houses and Coffee Bars and Alcohol, Wine and Beer Emporiums and guage the amount of spending that is being done on what might be considered unneccesary expenditures before you cry about the growing poverty levels in our society and the need for more and more government spending with borrowed monies or increased tax dollars taken from the capitalist investors in our country. You might be singing another tune!
Just checking to see if we have a common frame of reference.
Do you agree that businesses only create more jobs when they cannot meet the demand for their product or service or when they can reasonably forecast that demand for a new product. (This would assume that they have maxed out overtime, inventories, improved technology, and the limits of back ordering.)
Do you agree that when American businesses create jobs, they will only create those jobs in the United States, if it is in their financial best interest - either short or long range?
No "gotcha's" here - just checking to be sure that we agree that jobs come from demand (or reasonably anticipated demand) not from businesses having a lot of extra cash sitting around.)
The technologies of production of goods fom factory to retail outlet without the need to build up anticipated inventories negate the old management concepts of taking on labor to produce for anticipated demand...it is much more of a demand of the immediate moment economy we are in now. And demand is dictate more by the disposable incomes that people have from employment, low energy prices, and low taxes than any government initiated jobs bills that calls for increases in social spending.
In the new global economy good will be produced with labor that is the most efficient and all things being equal, at the lowest costs, and the production process easily managed and within realistic transporation to markets...of course, with the global marketplace, those markets are as much in foreign countries both developed and developing.
As the governent found out in their restructuring of General Motors after their takeover, the need was there to cut starting pay scales for workers, moderate the costs of fringe benefits, and providing for a renogotiating of restrictive union work rules to make the car and truck maker more competitive, while practically wiping out the equity of the bond holders of old. Of course, Ford Motors went their own way, and did not participate in federal government funding and mandted controls, and Ford today is far more successful than is General Motors.
The Federal Government, for all it CZARS, is not very adept at running our corporations, or structuring our economy..that needs to be left to the capatalists and the free market, of course.
So are we in accord, Adam?
Why is it that the Republicans fo not realize that Mitt Romney cannot win in November?
This is not a prediction, it is a fact.
Educator or Ecuador? Either way, what country do you live in Luigi?