by Karl Denninger
“... include when reading tripe like this: “So what will happen? In the end, I’d argue, what must happen is an effective default on a significant part of debt, one way or another. The default could be implicit, via a period of moderate inflation that reduces the real burden of debt; that’s how World War II cured the depression. Or, if not, we could see a gradual, painful process of individual defaults and bankruptcies, which ends up reducing overall debt.”
This, of course, is why we should borrow and spend more money on "stimulus." Krugman, for all his alleged smarts, fails to connect the ability to borrow (that is, to find someone to lend) and an inevitability of default. Exactly how, Paul, would you recommend that we go borrow up some more money to blow on "stimulus" (which you have repeatedly called for) if you are of the belief that we will eventually default? Would you loan us (the government) money knowing this fact - a fact that you claim to possess knowledge of?
I wouldn't. So why would you think others would? More to the point, if you believe that your default on debt is inevitable then continued borrowing under those circumstances is in fact an act of criminal fraud. You wouldn't be advocating that the government commit a crime, would you Paul? The disconnect between basic elements of logic always amuses me, especially when it comes from people like Krugman, who claim some special capacity for intellectual prowess."