Paul Krugman: By Historical Standards, It's Still A Very Slow Recovery

Paul Krugman (AP)

The New York Times:

The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts -- remember “green shoots”? -- it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it’s still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.

Read the whole story at The New York Times

Comments

[nothingchanges]

10:10 AM on 03/06/2012

Not too surprising really, is it?

Our 'representatives' in congress no longer represent the American people. They represent the "special interest" groups that fund their extravagant campaigns. (They NEED expensive campaigns to get re-elected, they certainly wouldn't win running on their records)

Only the wealthy are seeing a quantifiable recovery in the economy, and the wealthy have a vested interest in keeping wages low, and employees scared.

Congress WORKS...........................for the 1%.

That's WHY things are the way they are, in the U.S. of today.

[comhunt]

05:24 AM on 03/06/2012

The moment this Obama character was elected, I predicted that within 4 years.........we would all be sellin apples on street corners and checking the skies for attacking planes ! .........If this clown is re-elected........ the prediction will become reality.

[mandomitch]

11:58 AM on 03/06/2012

My 401k has doubled since Obama took office. Millions of people are better off now that we have seen the last of W. Your prediction was wrong four years ago. Your prediction will never become reality, unless we elect one of the Republiclowns.

[comhunt]

05:20 AM on 03/06/2012

There he goes again ! ...........We are not in a recovery.......we are stuck in Obama's 1933 economy.........and will stay in this time warp..........until theday after he leaves DC for good !

[VikingQuest]

08:46 PM on 03/05/2012

"Paul Krugman: By Historical Standards, It's Still A Very Slow Recovery"

Thanks captain obvious.

[zmanusmc]

04:32 PM on 03/05/2012

Krugman is an idiot .... Private business is the way out of this recession not the government. Stimulus failed.

[Protocolor]

06:07 PM on 03/05/2012

On one hand we have an expert in the field of economics, Dr. Krugman, making a researched and well supported point. On the other we have someone called zmanusmc waving around something he pulled out of a smelly orifice. Let's see, Krugman, or zmanusmc.... Krugman... zmanusmc... Krugman...

Sorry, zmanusmc, but I'm thinking the label "idiot" might better fit you.

[Darkswan]

09:29 PM on 03/05/2012

Krugman has been wrong at every turn for the past 3 years, and 5 trillion of debt.

Just like Geithner
Just like Summers
Just like team Obama

[SuperDW]

04:10 PM on 03/05/2012

Reagan was allowed to raise taxes. He had a reasonable opposition.

[theend3000]

04:08 PM on 03/05/2012

Don't want to grow big government...want to grow private jobs.

[blindjester]

06:30 PM on 03/05/2012

Work is work. Money is money.

It's a false dichotomy that the right wing talkers are spinning.

[dahile00]

08:51 PM on 03/05/2012

Don't want to grow big government? Stop supporting social "conservatives"! Watch government retreat from our lives faster than a campfire in a downpour!

[behindEnemyLines]

04:00 PM on 03/05/2012

apparently 5 trillion in 3.5 years is not enough for him....

[blindjester]

06:31 PM on 03/05/2012

The biggest part of the deficit is due to tax cuts.

And if everybody was working, and paying taxes, the economy would right itself, and revenue would surge.

[behindEnemyLines]

08:16 PM on 03/05/2012

actually that is incorrect. of the 1.53 trillion dollar deficit only 370 billion is attributed to the tax cuts a year. And only 70 billion of that 370 billion is attributed to the tax cuts for the "rich." The most expensive part (81%) of the Bush tax cuts are for those making UNDER 250k.

So if you end ALL the bush tax cuts we would still have a deficit of over 1 trillion dollars. Assuming of course if that money was used to reduce the deficit which it would not be.

[jimstaro]

03:54 PM on 03/05/2012

Yikes Krugman, you gotta be kidding, build economy like reagan????????
It's amazing how fast people, especially intelligent ones, so quickly forget the past of not long ago. Seems someone, and many, need to go back to the reagan collapse, one reason I moved South as the Northeast never really did come back out of that nor did many other area's, that totally took down construction etc. for well over a year, almost as soon as they brought in the free market ideology and wall street started becoming the roulette wheel not an invest in the public companies for growth. One of the things that brought it out of that collapse were the start of the easy credit schemes as wages started freezing and benefits started disappearing, they worked so well they kept changing them and adding investment scheme's to the roulette wheel, thus making people actually think they were getting that 'trickle down'. Wealth stopped investing for economic growth of country but for economic growth of individuals, using everyone else's money and labor and any growth happened with them doing so in places where labor was extremely cheap while prices we paid for whatever continued to rise!

[joefoss]

03:50 PM on 03/05/2012

I agree with Krugman.

However, it's important to point out that layoffs at the state and local level weren't only caused by federal spending "austerity," but by tax cuts for the rich, promoted by both Democratic (e.g., Cuomo of NY) & Republican (e.g., Christie of NJ) governors, that were paid for by firing even more thousands of public employees.

And, all this in the midst of the worst economic downturn in the U.S. in 80 years.
Gosh, it's enough to make you wonder if our political leaders have the welfare of working Americans at heart!

[ArgumentativePenguin]

03:42 PM on 03/05/2012

Obama would be able to do a lot more if he weren't battling a bats*** insane party.

[biodieselvw]

04:06 PM on 03/05/2012

He had a majority for 2 years and decided to pass "healthcare reform" instead.

[SuperDW]

05:18 PM on 03/05/2012

You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not.

[Aries Warrior]

03:37 PM on 03/05/2012

People are much easier to control when they`re poor and desperate.......you can get the to work for $ 5.00 an hour....isn`t that the Plan ?

[angel879]

03:31 PM on 03/05/2012

The government is not in the business of making money...it is not supposed to turn a profit

[zmanusmc]

04:37 PM on 03/05/2012

Or telling companies to fire their CEO's or tell companies they cannot file bankruptcy or nationalize private industries - more of the same if we reelect Obama.

[Protocolor]

06:08 PM on 03/05/2012

Sounds REAL good to me.

[Silverwolf72]

07:20 PM on 03/05/2012

When times are good it should run a surplus so that it can support itself when times are bad. Thanks to GB he gave away all of the surplus he was handed.

[castlemike]

03:22 PM on 03/05/2012

Of course Krugman doesn't say what percentage of the economy should comprise "government" since we are already at 20% with cuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/government-economic-output_n_1317117.html?ref=business#comments

The government is the Second Largest Component of the U.S. economy, making up one-fifth of all economic activity.

[DrBulldog]

03:36 PM on 03/05/2012

Who cares?

[Marcospinelli]

04:29 PM on 03/05/2012

DrBulldog is correct: So what?

The government provides vital services, and does it for less, and better, and more accountably to the American people, than private corporations.  Why in heck would you want to pay more for less just so a 1%-class can get a skim off the top?

[proudtohaveserved]

03:18 PM on 03/05/2012

yeah, and we would be 5 trillion bucks deepper in debt since he took us from 600 billion in debt under carter to 5 trillion in 12 years including bush sr