{"id":10487,"date":"2015-07-29T06:11:47","date_gmt":"2015-07-29T11:11:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=10487"},"modified":"2015-07-29T06:11:47","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T11:11:47","slug":"keynesians-wrong-about-stimulus-coming-and-going","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=10487","title":{"rendered":"Keynesians Wrong About Stimulus, Coming AND Going"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3><span class=\"blue\"><a href=\"http:\/\/mises.ca\/posts\/blog\/keynesians-wrong-about-stimulus-coming-and-going\/\" target=\"_blank\">Keynesians Wrong About Stimulus, Coming AND Going<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/mises.ca\/posts\/blog\/krugman-on-2013-heads-hes-a-scientist-tails-youre-a-jerk\/\">previous post<\/a>\u00a0here at Mises CA I chronicled the hole Krugman keeps digging for himself regarding the botched warnings over the so-called \u201csequester\u201d in 2013. Specifically, Krugman\u2019s latest excuse is to say that when he argued back in 2013 that the sequester was a \u201cfiscal doomsday machine\u201d and \u201cone of the worst policy ideas in our nation\u2019s history,\u201d he actually didn\u2019t look carefully at the numbers. In retrospect,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com\/2015\/06\/22\/2013-and-all-that\/\">Krugman is now claiming<\/a>, the Keynesian model wouldn\u2019t have predicted a big impact from the budget sequester, because it was small potatoes compared to the overall size of the economy.<\/p>\n<p>Besides the implicit admission that Krugman is throwing out such serious accusations\u00a0(\u201cfiscal doomsday machine\u201d etc.) without checking the numbers, is the simple fact that Krugman is wrong. Back in 2013 there were plenty of Keynesian analysts who were very well-versed with the numbers, and were confident that the sequester would slow U.S. economic growth.<\/p>\n<p>A great\u00a0example of this is a March 1, 2013\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/jaredbernsteinblog.com\/sequester-begins-to-fester\/\">post from Jared Bernstein<\/a>. Here\u2019s an excerpt:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.newrepublic.com\/article\/112544\/sequester-2013-another-recession-american-economy?wpisrc=nl_wonk#\">Economists<\/a>, including myself, agree on guesstimates about the magnitude of the sequester\u2019s impact\u2013it\u2019s expected to suck about half-a-point off of growth this year and cost 500,000-1 million jobs. \u00a0 That\u2019s not recessionary but it means more slogging along of the type I bemoaned\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/jaredbernsteinblog.com\/gdp-revised-up-crosses-zero-woo-hoo\/\">yesterday<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>So how come on Larry Kudlow\u2019s show\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/video.cnbc.com\/gallery\/?play=1&amp;video=3000151219\">last night<\/a>\u00a0it was one against four (about five minutes in) on this widely accepted point re the sequester\u2019s impact on growth?\u2026[U]nless you\u2019ve got a good reason to think otherwise\u2013and I heard nothing approach reason in the segment\u2013<strong>you\u2019ve got to go with the arithmetic<\/strong>, which in this case means subtraction of an estimated $66 billion in (calendar year!)\u00a02013 outlays.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"Apple-style-span\"><em>\u2026<strong>Clearly, the Kudlow-crew refuses to accept this math<\/strong>\u2026But here\u2019s my question: under what micro-economics do such multipliers not exist? \u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&#8230;click on the above link to read the rest of the article&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Keynesians Wrong About Stimulus, Coming AND Going In a\u00a0previous post\u00a0here at Mises CA I chronicled the hole Krugman keeps digging for himself regarding the botched warnings over the so-called \u201csequester\u201d in 2013. Specifically, Krugman\u2019s latest excuse is to say that when he argued back in 2013 that the sequester was a \u201cfiscal doomsday machine\u201d and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[240,7618,467,7617,614,1234],"class_list":["post-10487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","tag-economic-growth","tag-jared-bernstein","tag-keynesian-economics","tag-mises-institute","tag-paul-krugman","tag-stimulus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10487","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10487"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10487\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10488,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10487\/revisions\/10488"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}