01 Sep '09 13:54>
• "Basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course--it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world--but it's a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there. It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. It's biggest than Argentina in 2001. Which is not cyclical, there's only a little bit that's because the economy is depressed. Mostly it's because, fundamentally, the government isn't taking in enough money to pay for the programs and we have no strategy of dealing with it. So, if you take a look, the only thing that sustains the U.S. right now is the fact that people say, 'Well America's a mature, advanced country and mature, advanced countries always, you know, get their financial house in order,' but there's not a hint that that's on the political horizon, so I think we're looking for a collapse of confidence some time in the not-too-distant future."--Paul Krugman, interview with "Lateline," ABC (Australia), Nov. 3, 2004
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1064193.htm
• "So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, that's a terrifying number, requiring drastic action--in particular, of course, canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform. The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it's not catastrophic."--Paul Krugman, New York Times, Aug. 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1
At the time of the first statement, the budget deficit was about $400b and the national debt was under $9 trillion.
At the time of the second statement, the budget deficit is closer to $1 trillion and the national debt is pushing $11 trillion.
Ah, the neutral, rational economist...
I don't suppose the identities of the parties in power had anything to do with the disparities between these statements... Nah! Krugman isn't.... biased???? Is he?