First Things First, Mr. President

Nobody reads long comments...

Samuelson writes sensible articles...

This writer must be commended for writing a responsible and thoughtful article on the economy. As far as I know, he is the first writer to stand-up to the big spending prescriptions of the new New Dealers, who want to spend as much as $600 billion for a stimulus package as soon as the new President takes office. This article provides really sound advice, though the writer arrives at his conclusion by arguing that big spending programs would lead to political uncertainties which would undermine economic confidence. It is a valid point. But the main argument, in my opinion, against the people who are advocating Depression era economics is This writer must be commended for writing a responsible and thoughtful article on the economy. As far as I know, he is the first writer to stand-up to the big spending prescriptions of the new New Dealers, who want to spend as much as $600 billion for a stimulus package as soon as the new President takes office. This article provides really sound advice, though the writer arrives at his conclusion by arguing that big spending programs would lead to political uncertainties which would undermine economic confidence. It is a valid point. But the main argument, in my opinion, against the Depression era economists is that they are not addressing today's problems.

What the Fed Chairman Bernanke does not understand is that it is not only the quantum of rate cuts that is important, but also the timing. If the rate cuts were announced at a time of relative political clarity, then they would have the most effect on the economy. Instead, Bernanke had kept cutting interest rates by as much as 50 basis points at a time right through the Presidential elections, and now the rates are already down to 1%. Now he wants to resort to more dramatic initiatives like buying up treasury securities and mortgage securities.

The most economic advantage that the United States can gain is by focusing on its foreign policy to improve relations with the rest of the world, in particular, its trading partners. Instead, academic experts on economic policy are acting as if this crisis can be solved by increasing domestic spending. They have also scared people into believing quack-theories that there would be 'stag-deflation' if Keynesian policies are not followed. As for globalization, they would like to propose a new Bretton Woods. All this is reckless economic policy, and it is difficult to see how the United States would recover until it conducts a better foreign policy aimed towards promoting trade and economic growth.

Mr. Samuelson doesn't have the courage to respond to his readers. His job is to take press releases from the American Enterprise Institute and repackage them as his conclusions. Witness this attempt to forestall real healthcare reform by suggesting that it might face political opposition (ooh, scary....)

If you want economic analysis and intellectual interaction, read Mr. Gross.

Simple...have the rich pay more taxes instead of getting all the write-offs. Who hires the people who write these articles and makes them an authority. I don't think these "authors" have all the answers or they would be President, don't you think.

Only ONE USA problem is 3-5 times overpriced health care. With fair health care prices, even Big 3 would be almost competitive, most of States will not be close to bancruptcy, and companies would have a lot of extra-cash. But instead of the illness, both parties keep cure the symptoms.

I trust the Obama team to do the right thing. Green could be a code word for jobs and money. Clearly health care is important. Saving the auto industry is a priority. I understand that GM pays over $200 billion in taxes per year , if so $25 bil. is a smart move as long as they reform. We need new ideas and fast. Let us do what we must do and can do now . Let us be quick.

One year to fix economy? What an optimist. Most likely, Obama will spend all his 4 years trying to fix, and we will never have chance to see what the "change" he wanted.

Mr Samuelson, you posit obvious economic contradictions as some type of extraordinary insight or epiphany. Yet, in the final analysis, your stated conclusion is, in essence, a microcosmic, post-election "revelation" of what millions of Americans concluded on election day. At best, today's column does little more than remind your readers, for the most part, of the fundamental reason for casting their votes for Obama. Your words prompt me to remember that Obama will need all Americans, regardless of their respective political persuasions, to give him and his chosen economic team all the support necessary to rebuild the American economy.

Hey Samuelson,

Not much to comment on here, except that Obama has little wiggle room left because Bush has both run down the economy and left us an obscene deficit that make government solutions more expensive for the tax payer.

I can't resist. A few months ago you posted a column in which you almost laughed at the notion that oil prices were not being affected by speculators, yet since then, the price of oil has fallen like a lead balloon, with no obvious increase in production. Care to revisit your wacky assertions?