"And then there’s the British experience. Like America, Britain is still perceived as solvent by financial markets, giving it room to pursue a strategy of jobs first, deficits later. But the government of Prime Minister David Cameron chose instead to move to immediate, unforced austerity, in the belief that private spending would more than make up for the government’s pullback. As I like to put it, the Cameron plan was based on belief that the confidence fairy would make everything all right.
"But she hasn’t: British growth has stalled, and the government has marked up its deficit projections as a result.
"Which brings me back to what passes for budget debate in Washington these days.
"A serious fiscal plan for America would address the long-run drivers of spending, above all health care costs, and it would almost certainly include some kind of tax increase. But we’re not serious: any talk of using Medicare funds effectively is met with shrieks of “death panels,” and the official G.O.P. position — barely challenged by Democrats — appears to be that nobody should ever pay higher taxes. Instead, all the talk is about short-run spending cuts."
Perhaps Krugman should try a different tactic: perhaps he should advise in favour of the opposite of what he really thinks should be done. Maybe that's where he's going wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment