http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-1110-L22&ei=5087&en=d1dd38e101e9a450&ex=1305003600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1289574074-cA2ncPA3IhBKYtTq4zCMqg
Argument: Obama erred by not spending twice what he did, and indebting us twice what he did. Subtext: government action is necessary to create jobs, and that its job is to “do something”.
To this, he tries to sneak in the idea that Obama is “bank friendly”, but not as “bank friendly” as the Republicans. What should we take away? That Obama is actually a moderate, who has just been trying to get along, rather than a radical socialist whose patent distaste for all forms of private enterprise has had an enormous chilling effect on the optimism of those who actually risk their own money, rather than someone elses.
Recommendation: double down.
My response: read my piece, Keynes in a nutshell. I have been pondering a short addition, and will make it right after I click “post” here.