It’s New York Times columnist vs. New York Times columnist, again.
Back in April, it was Paul Krugman and Andrew Ross Sorkin who were feuding—Krugman didn’t like the way Sorkin described his position on bank nationalization.
This time, it’s Krugman vs. David Leonhardt, and the feud appears to be far less personal. But the question that divides them—Is the US like Greece?—has quickly become a divining rod for a related debate about the nature of U.S. debt and what should be done about it.
The gentlemen from the Times aren’t the only ones to be weighing in on this issue.
The FT’s Clive Crook took on the question early in the week, writing that he’s not too worried about “Greece as fiscal harbinger.” Crook’s bigger concern is that “secondary effects…and any widening emergency” could put the brakes on the U.S. recovery.
And conservatives who like to complain about the evils of big government were quick to embrace the Greek crisis as a stark illustration of a public sector run amok.
This was Mona Charen in National Review last week:
Public-sector unions are growing in the U.S. More than 50 percent of all union members are now public employees, and their unions have negotiated sweet deals with local, state, and federal governments. As economic historian John Steele Gordon points out, “Federal workers now earn, in wages and benefits, about twice what their private-sector equivalents get paid. State workers often have Cadillac health plans and retirement benefits far above the private sector average: 80 percent of public-sector workers have pension benefits, only 50 percent in the private sector. Many can retire at age 50.” While private employers were shedding jobs during the recession, state and local governments hired 110,000 new workers.
Greece is in flames, but if you look around, you can smell the smoke here as well.
Krugman and Leonhardt strike a very different tone. And they seem to agree on one point: the main problem for the U.S. is the long-term deficit.
But these two experts have very different ways of looking at the are-we-or-aren’t-we question, and very different outlooks on the federal debt. Is it any wonder the rest of us find this difficult to navigate?
Here’s how Leonhardt framed it on Wednesday:
In Greek Debt Crisis, Some See Parallels to U.S.
The numbers on our federal debt are becoming frighteningly familiar. The debt is projected to equal 140 percent of gross domestic product within two decades. Add in the budget troubles of state governments, and the true shortfall grows even larger. Greece’s debt, by comparison, equals about 115 percent of its G.D.P. today.
You could almost hear Krugman rushing to his keyboard. Late Wednesday morning, he fired back on his blog.
Um, that’s comparing a (highly uncertain) projection of debt 20 years from now — a projection that’s based on the assumption of unchanged policy — with actual debt now. Actual US federal debt is only about half that high now. And it’s worth pointing out that Greek debt is projected to rise to 149 percent of GDP over the next few years — and that’s with the austerity measures agreed with the IMF.
Basically, the United States can expect economic recovery to bring the deficit down substantially; Greece, which has a larger structural deficit and also faces a grinding adjustment to overvaluation with the eurozone, can’t.
Krugman’s conclusion on the blog: “Yes, the United States needs fiscal adjustment….But we really don’t look much like Greece.”
But with his Friday column, the professor was even clearer.
We’re Not Greece
Krugman convincingly pointed out that the interest rate on Greek government bonds is more than twice the rate on U.S. bonds, “because investors see a high risk that Greece will eventually default on its debt, while seeing virtually no risk that America will do the same.”

The solution may be none of the above (I dofavor decreased miltary spending, some higher taxes, and aggressive health care reform though): http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/, http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/, levy.org, cfeps.org
#1 Posted by Matt Parker, CJR on Sat 15 May 2010 at 07:07 PM
Here's the thing, Krugman draws a parallel between the debt of the past (post WW2) and the debt of the future and the result comforts him because the debt shrank as a percentage of GDP, not because the debt actually shrank, but because the economy grew.
The problem in that analysis being there is no parallel between the economic conditions in the 1950's and the current ones. There has not been a recent devastating war that decimated the European and Asian zones while leaving American production untouched. In fact, America is the one at war expending billions of wasted capital on a game of "Where's Waldo bin Laden". There has not been a period of repressed demand, leading to hoards of savings awaiting to be released. In fact, the consumers of today have negative savings and, in terms of their houses, many have negative assets. The American markets are not the safe regulated refuge they once were. In fact, the trust in them has fallen dramatically since they were the primary cause the recent global meltdown.
The problem is Paul is right. Government debt could be put to productive means if the government were to take an active role in the creation of new public utilities and the development of a clean energy economy, never mind a revitalization of infrastructure.
But America and it's politics are different today than they were in the 1940's and 50's.
Dukakis said it awhile back, America has forgotten how to do efficient public construction:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/02/02/dukes-place-michael-dukakis-on-how-to-fix-america/
People who believed in public service were pushed out of their civil positions in preference to people who believed in "public choice" economics.
The result is less grand public works like hoover dam and more public debacles like Big Dig and the sewers of Jefferson County:
http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbi-jpmorgan-alabama-2010-4
Now in that kind of environment of political paralysis and corrupt finance, how can one be an optimist about future growth, especially when the president of such is such a weak non-progressive?
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 15 May 2010 at 11:39 PM
But the people who ask/campaign for reductions in the "welfare state" (even though SS is not a welfare program because the benefits are earned over a lifetime of working and making paid contributions) never speak of dismantling the warfare state. And budget gaps can never be entirely closed by cuts in education or the arts but that doesn't stops them from trying. However, this kind of statement seems to be an unquestioned excuse for not even trying to restore/strengthen progressive tax rates: "As a matter of economics, it is simply not possible to close that gap entirely with tax increases on the rich, as Democratic liberals want so desperately to believe."
At the start of the Iraq War I heard commentators on npr etc who observed that no other country had ever reduced taxes and increased war spending at the very same time (paraphrased from memory); that some reckoning/some doom was bound to occur from that burning of a candle at both ends. And now we have evidence that that is in fact true but we don't hear much about the two wars as budget busters even though Joe Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes studied it carefully and explained it very clearly:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece
"The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.
The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.
........
The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.
Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it - in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation."
We have priority problems in this country (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/node/5991).
#3 Posted by MB, CJR on Mon 17 May 2010 at 05:38 PM