|
Nach jedem Kommentar in der NYTimes gibt es für die Leser die Möglichkeit über die Artikel zu diskutieren. Manche Anfragen beantworten die Kommentoren auch selbst. Dies ist die Auswahl nach Krugmans letztem Artikel. Es gibt oder gab auch einen richtigen Blog in den Weiten des Onlineauftritts der Times. http://krugman.page.nytimes.com/b/a/257815.htm?p=1 May 19, 2006 Economy No Longer Defying Gravity Readers respond to Paul Krugman's May 19 column, "Coming Down to Earth" Lee Bartkowski, Long Beach, Calif.: I dearly would love to see a return to domestic production of as many goods as possible. In my opinion the heart of an economy is manufacturing, and the U.S. once was eminent in this field. A $700 billion trade deficit should be carrot enough to once again get us back into the game of making things — from raw materials to finished products. Jobs are made, taxes are paid, and the country's morale is boosted. Transportation costs from abroad will increasingly be a factor in limiting imports, given the rising price of fuels. It can't hurt to return to self-sufficiency. This isn't to suggest we isolate ourselves, but why pay someone for our debts when we can use the money here for sound purposes? James Pines, Chevy Chase, Md.: Your May 19 column is right on target, but there is another important point that has received surprisingly little attention. Bush, et al., attribute the economy's recent strength to his tax cuts. However, any decent economist could have predicted that spending $200 billion on a war would give the economy a positive jolt, without or without any tax cuts. Indeed, piling the tax cuts onto the war spending could only, and has, made the situation far worse. I hope you will emphasize in one of your columns that the war spending should have been offset, in part, by RAISING taxes. Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson could have provided useful guidance, if Bush or anyone around him had bothered to look. Keep up your wonderful work. Alan Gertler, Reno, Nev.: I'm a scientist, not an economist, so I'm fairly naive when it comes to what drives the economy. My question is this: Have the tax cuts stimulated the economy as claimed (which I don't believe given the past cases of Reagan and Bush senior), or has it been the willingness of the government to continue massive spending by increasing our debt that has led to the growth of the economy? Paul Krugman:It's actually neither. About the Bush tax cuts: the tax cuts of 2001 evidently didn't do the job; these days, the Bush people talk about the economy as if history began in the middle of 2003, after their SECOND wave of tax cuts. But while the economy did start growing, finally, in 2003, the growth wasn't at all of the form you'd expect if tax cuts were responsible. The main tax cuts were on dividends and capital gains; supposedly this would make it easier for businesses to raise funds and invest. But business investment hasn't been the main driver of growth; in fact, businesses have been sitting on huge piles of earnings, reluctant to invest. Instead, the big driver was housing construction and consumer spending. So what really happened? Low interest rates led to a housing boom that eventually turned into a housing bubble. High house prices made people feel richer, and they could borrow against the increased value of their homes, feeding consumer spending. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it. |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | Finanzpolitik: Die USA als Warnung? |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | Joerver (21.05.06 11:25:46) |
| Beitrag: | 1,049 von 1,061 (ID:21716235) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |