Apparently Dr. Krugman has borrowed a page from Alan Moore and suggested that a fake alien invasion would end the economic stagnation the world seems to be facing. From the first paragraph of the link:
Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round of stimulus spending that he’s now calling for a fake alien invasion of the United States to spur a World War II-style defense buildup.
I’m not sure I agree with his analysis, but it is consistent with his argument that the Iraq War served as a spur to the economy:
The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Yes, there would be infinitely better ways to spend the money. But at a time when a shortfall of demand is the problem, the Iraq war nonetheless acts as a sort of WPA, supporting employment directly and indirectly.
So, points to Krugman for consistency. But at some point I have to wonder, with all that money spent (rightly or wrongly) on the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the rest of the War on Man-Caused Disaster, Medicare Plan D, ObamaCare, TARP, other bailouts, the 2008 stimulus, the 2009 stimulus, the 2010 stimulus, et cetera et cetera et cetera… when’s all this stimulus going to stimulate? Or are we supposed to keep believing that it’s served to keep us afloat, and without it we’d be in a depression? How much longer are we supposed to believe that?
Just to clarify: Krugman opposed the Iraq War and would (presumably) oppose a fake alien invasion. He obviously does not support war as a means to boost an economy; he’s simply pointing out that, according to some economists, war can provide a short run economic boost.
I just looked at the date. My buddy Scott died in a wreck on this date in 1995. I’ll have to write a post about him soon.