Um, it is NOT obvious to me, certainly. In REALITY, our entire economy is structured on the idea that people need to PRODUCE something that other people want to buy.

When you start your article with a premise that is incorrect, the rest of your argument becomes irrelevant, and not worth the time it would take to respond to it.

So I guess my work here is done! Better luck next time.

Somehow it doesn’t seem that it really resembles our current situation at all no matter what some blogger might claim.

Take a look at this. The Great Depression of 1920. That’s right, 1920.

That link isn’t anything close to ALL of the evidence, of course. I’m not that easily swayed; I just happen to find that link very, very interesting, because it shines light on something that hardly anyone learns in school. But the more I’ve looked into the history of economics, from other American situations to Japan’s stagflation to an analysis of just where the Obama administration got its numbers for its budget forecasts, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama is wrong about this one. And it’s going to make things worse, not better.

That’s a good place to start Justin. Here’s the thing: going forward our economy will HAVE TO be structured on what the people are spending. People are spending, but they are spending less, and they are prioritizing. They are recalculating the boundary between need and want. There will be a new equilibrium that will be established at some point, and we’ll all be stuck in the new world of what is possible based on THAT equilibrium and what we can build sustainably into the future on THAT new foundation.

Think “own a car for 10 years.” Think “go to a commuter college while working and living at home.” Think “no cable TV.” Think “this old TV is still good.” Then start looking around at all the other stuff that is still good. Think ” I have a budget now, and sticking to it is not optional.” And so on and so on.

I do not find the scenario you paint particularly vexing. I just believe that if this is how things play out things will be much harder for the lower income levels of our society and that the number of permanently unemployed people who cannot find a job because the jobs just don’t exist will increase. If this happens what I would like to see is some honest acknowledgment of it by “fiscal conservatives” and for an honest attempt to be made to solve the problems that would lead to. But all too often when I hear these scenarios discussed it is accompanied by no more than a simplistic statement that people will have to adjust or “buckle down” or “just work harder”. Somehow it is never mentioned that just maybe we are heading towards creating a system where those words are empty platitudes for part of our population.

I would argue that the current $410 spending bill full of earmarks fails the judiciousness test on its face. Obama promised he’d go through the budget line by line and make cuts, and he said he’d push for a stop to earmarks. He said spending would reflect only important national priorities. That sounded good to me.

I’m not throwing him under the bus. I have patience and these are difficult circumstances. But I’m watching and waiting. And I’m prepared to grade based on the expectation he himself described. That’s as fair as it gets.

Libraries for old senators and pig odor research are not important national priorities. They are local favoritism, pork spread round widely.
Current levels of gross gov’t overspending are simply not sustainable over the long term without serious additional adverse consequences. Only fools would ignore this. By pointing it out I don’t become an advocate for doing nothing. Excuse me for questioning the efficacy of tossing around borrowed money as fast as we can print it. Sin in haste, repent at leisure, right JIm?

Add to your list of things to think permanent high unemployment and underemployment because that system will just not produce enough jobs that pay a living wage. What then?

Don’t know what you mean by “that system.” Seems to me no one has an answer to the question of what system produces enough jobs at “living wages.” I’m simply suggesting that wise folk will tighten their belts until the downturn phases into equilibrium and the economy begins to grow again. Going forward I fully expect the financial markets will be more highly regulated, and that credit will be hard to come by for risky borrowers. That just makes sense. I am mystified why you find this controversial or vexing.

Add to your list of things to think permanent high unemployment and underemployment because that system will just not produce enough jobs that pay a living wage. What then? No ideological BS about how it just can’t work out that way. What if it does? What adaptations will political conservatives find acceptable in the face of that reality?

Justin’s repeated contentions amount to insisting that the correct strategy is “ready, fire, aim.” Absent from these contentions is any explanation of how our nation ultimately pays for all this spending and who will bail out the US government if it finds itself unable to sustain such levels of spending, which it will if this goes on for more than another year or so. Where among all these posts is the concern for America defaulting on its obligations or setting off runaway inflation?

Jim,I missed the part where folks like let’s say Doug and I have recommended doing nothing. Please do us the favor of refraining from crafting arguments that counter those of a nonexistent straw-poster.

Why the hell is it beyond the pale to ask our elected leaders to act both boldly _and_ judiciously? Why the hell ought ordinary Americans refrain from looking askance at bills filled with spending on the pet projects of individual congressfolk?

Something everybody has to realize…our entire economy is structured on the idea that people spend money.

That’s a good place to start Justin. Here’s the thing: going forward our economy will HAVE TO be structured on what the people are spending. People are spending, but they are spending less, and they are prioritizing. They are recalculating the boundary between need and want. There will be a new equilibrium that will be established at some point, and we’ll all be stuck in the new world of what is possible based on THAT equilibrium and what we can build sustainably into the future on THAT new foundation.

Think “own a car for 10 years.” Think “go to a commuter college while working and living at home.” Think “no cable TV.” Think “this old TV is still good.” Then start looking around at all the other stuff that is still good. Think ” I have a budget now, and sticking to it is not optional.” And so on and so on.

Do you know what doing nothing will do? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Are you willing to abandon major parts of the welfare reform law of 1996 if it turns out that the economic downturn will produce such a long term amount of unemployment that it will wipe out that five year limit for how long people can receive benefits? Republicans (and maybe some Blue Dogs) would oppose any extension or expansion of the safety net based on past performance. Would it be acceptable if they filibustered to achieve that goal? What human cost is acceptable for the sake of ideology? That is what a desire to do nothing when the results of both “actions” are unknown comes down to, after all.

At some point our entitlement programs will start to get crushed under the weight of record unemployment and underemployment, and we’ll still have to spend money we don’t have on making sure people aren’t out on the streets. Why not spend money now on getting the economy moving again instead of taking the “fingers crossed” approach?

Because if we undergo the sacrifices now to re-align our economy properly, we will be able to bottom out with less unemployment and less poverty – as well as climb out more quickly – than we would later on if we print and borrow money to try to re-inflate a phony bubble economy right now.

Spending money we don’t have on makework jobs that don’t produce wealth, or on massive bailouts of failed business models, or on expanding government beaurocracies, is the “fingers crossed” approach.

That’s what “fiscally responsible” means. Spending your money wisely. So the question isn’t should we spent money its do we need to spend this much money.

Nothing said in this post (or any of Justin’s posts for that matter) has made that case.

That’s the problem with governing in a crisis, you usually don’t know what the heck to do (I’m convinced that’s what’s going on with Obama and, especially, Geithner) so you tend to overcompensate.

The bill for all this spending is going to come due and when it does its likely to wipe out whatever growth may have occurred in the meantime.