Not household budget
Not household budget
Donald J. Boudreaux, author of the column “No free stimulus” (July 24 and TribLIVE.com), apparently is not aware that when you can print money and there is no statutory requirement linking the money supply to fixed assets, budgets and deficits do not apply in the same way they do to a household budget, where fixed-income, zero-sum dynamics apply.
Boudreaux's critique of Paul Krugman seems to be based on a gold standard that no longer applies. Krugman points out that the low interest rates that prevail for the federal government and U.S. corporations show confidence in the United States among the world's investors that Boudreaux denies as if it were global warming.
The arithmetic of deficit spending applied as equally to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as it does to Barack Obama. What is clearly mistaken were the tax cuts that Bush guaranteed would pay for themselves. What was mistaken was the corporate deregulation and free trade that Bill Clinton and Bush claimed would free the American marketplace to compete on the world stage. The tax cuts resulted in record deficits; the deregulation nearly destroyed our economy, without creating jobs or building American markets abroad; the free trade shipped the factories and jobs overseas.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Appalling advice
- Wrong on immigration II
- LCB: Asset to modernize
- A buck to pass?
- Charge, don’t fine
- Pass GMO label bill
- Latest lie?
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- PNC: New roles for helpers
- ATI’s broken promises