John Lounsbury

Job Losses: Not Bottoming Yet

Good comments here.

Reinko - "Who will pay for these jobs?" The answer is increased deficit spending. Now, if the increased deficits were created by tax cuts, supply-siders would endorse the action. If the deficits were increased by more government spending, the Keynsians would endorse the action.

The correct action is not going to be determined by ideology. What is needed is a business plan that involves a careful cost/benefit analysis plus careful assessment of possible unintended consequenses. This is so complex that it may too much to expect that a reasonable plan can be formulated. After all, nobody has even been able to properly analyze the debt pyramid that has already been created and is collapsing.

I have been screaming for a balanced federal budget since 2003, but I'll put that on a back burner for now. I never thought I would relent on the deficit issue, but right now a balanced budget and a depression don't sound like a desirable option to me.

Mark Goldes and John S. Gordon - You are on the two horns of the dilema that leads me to the deficit spending prediction in the discussion above.

Maybe the capitalist ideal is to let the weak die and the vultures build a new system. However, how do we know the new system would be any better? Or even as good as what we let die?

I guess I would call myself a pragmatic idealist. I always feel compelled to look for an efficient way to salvage what can be salvaged and build anew what must be replaced. Complexity makes this very difficult, whereas the law of the jungle (economically speaking) is much simpler. There are those who say the economic law of the jungle is efficient. I say only the vultures would agree.