His (very cursory) estimate explicitly relied on the level of unemployment. Of course it was low when unemployment was only expected to get to 8.5%. What matters is the stimulus per percentage point of unemployment (the Okun's law thing), which was higher than Obama's.
That Krugman fails to see the relationship is not something I'm able to fix.
Your historical revisionism regarding stimulus is a non-sequitur. Your original complaint was about how we knew there was a cost to inaction, which is what I showed you.
No, my original complaint was that the "cost to inaction" was entirely fabricated. Inaction was, in retrospect, the better choice.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 4/3/11 22:12 (UTC)That Krugman fails to see the relationship is not something I'm able to fix.
Your historical revisionism regarding stimulus is a non-sequitur. Your original complaint was about how we knew there was a cost to inaction, which is what I showed you.
No, my original complaint was that the "cost to inaction" was entirely fabricated. Inaction was, in retrospect, the better choice.