Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(35,309 posts)
16. It's an interesting claim about aggregate consumer spending.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:26 PM
Jan 2012

But Krugman's point is that since 85% of consumer spending is for domestically produced goods/services, therefore 85% of any stimulus spending that gives money to people will be spent on domestically produced goods/services.

He misses the point that if you make $15k/year versus $150k/year you're likely to spend the money on different kinds of things. There's no reason to really suspect that spending by both the poor and the wealthy, as well as by the intermediate categories, is the same. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Since most people that would receive stimulus money in the form of a tax rebate or reduction already have income and transportation, most of the increase would go for goods or services. So drop housing and transportation largely from the mix. What's left? That's what he has to focus on.

His claim, he gets to prove it instead of pointing out a claim that's probably fairly factual and allowing us to draw the non-fact-based, conclusion deemed appropriate by him.

I would like to see the separation on goods vs. services Broderick Jan 2012 #1
You are looking at it. cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #2
I am not following the chart at all. Confusing to me Broderick Jan 2012 #4
The two scales do make it confusing cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #8
I assume the graph was done that way to better show the rise in the line for Chinese goods. DCBob Jan 2012 #11
That is fascinating.. DCBob Jan 2012 #3
Does this include food? Mz Pip Jan 2012 #5
This is an important point, as is understanding who holds our debt cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #6
Services includes a lot of things that are fixed expenses, housing, insurance, vehicle maintenance.. Fumesucker Jan 2012 #7
Food has to be a large part of the "made in USA" buying. canoeist52 Jan 2012 #9
When food and energy are excluded, 88% of expenditure is 'Made in USA' muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #12
I assume outsourcing IT, call center, data processing is a service. DCBob Jan 2012 #10
Services, sure. GOODS? No fucking way. HopeHoops Jan 2012 #13
Even DU heroes like Krugman are pissing in the wind against "common sense" dmallind Jan 2012 #14
+1 cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #15
Nice post. Actual facts usually do little to change a belief that "remains an immutable and pampango Jan 2012 #18
+1! Zalatix Jan 2012 #20
It's an interesting claim about aggregate consumer spending. Igel Jan 2012 #16
What's left is food cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #17
The word "aggregate" means added up quaker bill Jan 2012 #25
Kicked and recommended. TheWraith Jan 2012 #19
I stand corrected. applegrove Jan 2012 #21
Fascinating result. joshcryer Jan 2012 #22
I wonder if fast food is counted and how much that accounts for... nt Bonobo Jan 2012 #23
what Krugman ignores if the knock-on effect of manufacturing... JCMach1 Jan 2012 #24
Krugman has not, and is not likely to ignore that cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #26
I am a Krugman fan actually... his point is about stimulus JCMach1 Jan 2012 #28
Sorry for misunderstanding you cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #30
He would probably say something like JCMach1 Jan 2012 #31
Theoretically the real analogy is more like this: joshcryer Jan 2012 #27
mon dieu JCMach1 Jan 2012 #29
Check it out: joshcryer Jan 2012 #32
We have bauxite reserves, but no mining JCMach1 Jan 2012 #33
+1, I think that's true, and it's not like a conspiracy or anything. joshcryer Jan 2012 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Krugman: 85% of consumer ...»Reply #16