Centre d’études et de recherche sur l’Inde, l’Asie du Sud et sa diaspora (CERIAS) Centre d’études sur l’intégration et la mondialisation (CEIM) Centre d’études sur le droit international et la mondialisation (CEDIM) Centre de recherche en immigration, ethnicité et citoyenneté (CRIEC) Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la diversité (CRIDAQ) Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en développement international et société (CIRDIS) Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur les relations internationales du Canada et du Québec (CIRRICQ) Chaire de recherche sur l’islam contemporain en Afrique de l’Ouest (ICAO) Chaire Raoul-Dandurand en études stratégiques et diplomatiques Chaire UNESCO de Développement Curriculaire (CUDC) Chaire UNESCO d’étude des fondements philosophiques de la justice et de la société démocratique Chercheur.e.s en responsabilité sociale et développement durable (CRSDD) Clinique internationale de défense des droits humains (CIDDHU) Groupe de recherche en cyberdiplomatie et cybersécurité (GCC) Groupe de recherche en droit international et comparé de la consommation (GREDICC) Observatoire canadien sur les crises et l’action humanitaires (OCCAH) Institut d’études internationales de Montréal (IEIM) Calendier

Accueil > Centre d’études sur l’intégration et la mondialisation (CEIM) > James K. Galbraith

James K. Galbraith

19 juillet 2010

Un nouveau débat entre J. K. Galbraith et P. Krugman

In the New York Times blog on Saturday, two posts from Paul and my replies, one of which Paul graciously promoted from comments :

http://tiny.cc/v0cdy and http://tiny.cc/77qki

My second reply is not yet published, so I include the text below.

For those with an interest in the analytical issues, this blog-post is helpful : http://tiny.cc/qofwl.

“Paul, thanks for this response.

Let’s first notice that the concerns about national bankruptcy,
hyperinflation and so forth that characterized your first post have now
disappeared.

At this point, we agree on the (fairly trivial, and highly remote)thesis
that at full employment, a higher rate of (garden-variety) inflation can be a problem.

And we agree that this thesis is both trivial and highly remote.

However, there still remains an important question.

Should we, or should we not, act *today* to cut *projected* deficits at
some future date ?

For instance, by cutting Social Security and Medicare ?

I say no.

I say there is absolutely no economic reason to enact future cuts in these vital programs.

I say that the economic forecasts of vast deficits and high interest rates after the return of full employment are implausible and internally inconsistent, for reasons given in my testimony to the deficit commission, and elsewhere.

I say that good policies cannot be based on bad forecasts, that we should solve the unemployment problem first, and that when we have done so, the most likely thing is that tax revenues will rise and the deficit forecasts will be proven wrong.

This is what happened in the late 1990s. Why should we think it wouldn’t happen again ?

Paul, I challenge you to drop the long-term deficit argument entirely — it will be used in a few months, in a dishonest way by unscrupulous people, to support cuts in Social Security and Medicare that cannot be justified by economic logic. These are cuts which, I am sure, you will oppose when they are proposed.

Don’t set yourself up.”

JG


Écrit par
Suivant


Partenaires

Banque Scotia MRI - Ministère des relations internationales Gouvernement du Canada Faculté de science politique et de droit Connexion internationale de Montréal Association canadienne pour les Nations Unies du Grand Montréal Conseil des relations internationales de Montréal (CORIM)