Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Recap: Scarborough v. Krugman

What really came out in the debate is that Joe Scarborough is as Keynesian as Paul Krugman.

At one point, Scarborough said he'd be willing to provide up to $200 billion in infrastructure spending. He also tried to make the point that he was not worried about short-term deficits, but rather long-term debt. His one area of concern seemed to be  medicare and social security, but even on this point he didn't understand the issue correctly. He seemed to think the SS problem is at least a decade down the road, when the SS fund is already cash flow negative and will be seriously so within just a couple of years.

Scarborough maintained a Keynesian macro framework right into his closing remarks, which implied there is a role for government in "growing" the economy:
We can grow the economy in the short run, we can also do what's responsible for our children and for our grandchildren, which is be concerned about the long-term debt. That seems pretty damn rational to me.
There are many ways to prick holes in Krugman's argument, but Scarborough didn't come close.


  1. There's a reason why Scarborough is allowed to host a show on MSNBC and why he is allowed to be on the Charlie Rose show.

  2. Bob Roddis,

    You're much too thoughtful and reasonable to be allowed to sit behind a keyboard and have your say on the Internets. Commander, take this man's console away!