Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Bruce - Krugman question

I see Krugman always listed as a professor at Princeton.  Any idea if he actively teaches these days?  Having written over twenty books and now being on TV about 3 nights a week I have to wonder how he could find the time to teach. 

5 Replies

Re: Bruce - Krugman question

You could look at the university website and check the econ dept and look at the course offering. I think it is accepted protocal for somebody to be referred to as Professor for the rest of their life once they become accredited as one.  I see it often in obituaries.  Actually referred to as Dr. .  No different than Reverand. Sticks with you once some institution classifies you as one.   Think Condi Rice. Come to think of it though I never heard anybody ask a back door question like that about her.

Re: Bruce - Krugman question PS

Saw this last night dag.  Krugman engaged in civil conversation being allowed to complete thoughts and sentences without Carlie Floriani or somebody else shouting him down.


The other guy, but for one indescretion that I'm sure he won't be able to shake  would be the leader on the board right now for 2016.

Senior Contributor

Re: Bruce - Krugman question PS

I'm curious what exactly Krugman considers to be "minimum stimulus spending" to help spur on the economy?   The latest total I've seen being reported claim total stimulus federal spending to be $800 billion.  Is there a point where Krugman would say that is simply to much money to spend to try and stimulate the economy?


I don't want to GM or Chrysler go belly up nor do I want to see big banks fail.  Plus I want to see new businesses created and  become successful and especially in the alternative energy field. 


However I have to wonder what would have happened if all the Bush and Obama stimulus money had been divvied up among the adults in the US and told they must spend at least half the money on new consumer goods and can save the rest, pay down mortgages or spend on college educations.  Going by an estimate I found of $800 billion in stimulus spending and the fact that there is around 235 million adults in the US it comes out to roughly $3400 per adult.   One could even pay more to adults with dependent children.


Be interesting to see how well that would have stimulated the economy and helped create jobs compared to giving most of the money to banks and corporations that sometimes hunker down and rate for the economy to take off before making major investments in business.

Senior Advisor

Re: Bruce - Krugman question PS

t wouldn't work Dag.  Giving every adult $3.4 K would produce spotty results. Just like the last stimulus provided for some tax incentives. Package that had to serve some political interests to get passed.


Krugman is probably talking about a $3 trillion stimulus or more with an immediate impact on the economy with ongoing support if necessary.  LIke a farmer say nothing costs as much as a poor crop. In the world of stimulus nothing costs as much ans an inadequate effort.  If you don't impact enough economic activity there won't be enough to bring us out of the economic funk


The people of North dakota don't need a stimulus because there is the shock of oil money that is increasing demand for most everything. And that is what we need is customers for our stores and businesses.


Thus the shock of a strong stimulus could well reward everyone. Austerity need not be removed from the strategy sessions but needs to be on the back burner for a while until the economic engine is running full bore.


I think the strategy of tax cuts as a solution for economic growth has been over sold and this new president romney plans to bet more on it.


The money going to the banks averted a financial lockdown. I have little interest in helping banks but do visualize the ramification bank closures would have had on the average american. I would support selective measures to break up banks and expecially investment banks.



Re: Bruce - Krugman question PS

You'd never be able to borrow $3t on the capital markets. You'd have to print it.


Won't happen, David Stockman tells why:


"The question is: Will the central banks be able to do that now, given that they have already expanded their balance sheets? The Fed balance sheet was $900 billion (B) when Lehman crashed in September 2008. It took 93 years to build it to that level from when the Fed opened for business in November 1914. Bernanke then added another $900B in seven weeks and then he took it to $2.4 trillion in an orgy of money printing during the initial 13 weeks after Lehman. Today it is nearly $3 trillion. Can it triple again? I do not think so. Worldwide it's the same story: the top eight central banks had $5 trillion of footings shortly before the crisis; they have $15 trillion today. Overwhelmingly, this fantastic expansion of central bank footings has been used to buy or discount sovereign debt. This was the mother of all monetizations."