What will bring U.S. back to full employment is a big question among economists. The problem is that the 155,000 new jobs per month in 2012 isn't enough to either absorb new entrants, or those that have lost jobs. Only the investment of more money grows a sluggish economy.
Why not Paul Krugman? He has a Nobel prize in Economics. He's proven his ability to communicate economic knowledge to the multitude. And he's a fierce opponent of cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits, and the austerity dogma more generally.
The New York Times should be embarrassed. On December 24 it gave a Christmas present to the corporate-backed lobby group Fix the Debt with its front-page Business section puff piece about the organization.
Now that the Hathaway Effect has been widely acknowledged, how could it be manipulated? Now I'm not suggesting any nefarious motives or a full-scale Elizabeth Warren-inspired NYSE investigation into vaginagate, but...
Studies bear out that record income inequality, a poor social safety net and lax, almost nonexistent gun control laws all contribute to the U.S. record as the most gun violent culture in the world.
Over the past year, we've seen a lot of commentary about John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, their relationship, their debates, their various ideas ...
Words are contested terrain in political debate. The words we use to label issues and ideas shape how people think about them.
We know politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows. But the emerging alliance between the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party led by New York T...
Allowing the nation to go over the fiscal cliff for a very short period of time will provide all the legitimate political benefits of such a policy dive -- with few to none of the menacing losses that are looming at the bottom. We can readily fly off the cliff on January 1st and be back on the top by January 2nd, 2013.
For liberals, high rates promise to ameliorate inequality. Economists may raise doubts about the efficacy of higher rates in achieving that goal. But it seems fair to say -- as liberals often do -- that lowering rates isn't likely to help.
President Obama's victory means it's back to the future for economic as well as social policies. That is, if he doesn't give in to Boehner's House Republicans.
The story now: Gridlock or bipartisanship? How can the political leaders of the two Americas cut a deal on the deficit and avoid the 'fiscal cliff?' The British experience of coalition government offers a few tips.
Spitzer & Matalin agree that Obama "won" the second debate on style/theatrics but they split on substance -- polls show Romney had edge on jobs while Obama scored TKO on "acts of terror" counter-punch. Then: the two 'drill down' on Women, Economy & Turnout.
Since no expert believes it can be done without removing such favored tax shelters as the home mortgage interest deduction, it will create the same austerity trap Europeans now find themselves in.
Paul Krugman is one of America's intellectual treasures, but he is stunningly off when it comes to the deficit. He's not the only deficit denier, but Mr. Krugman is so respected by the left wing of the Democratic Party that his arguments could prove quite problematic.
Krugman examines the people Obama selected to be part of his economic team and the amount of money they settled on for the economic stimulus package.