Maybe in the very very short run. But give people even a few weeks, and you'll see commodity money being used again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money

After the initial crisis, and panic is over, there needs to be some form of currency. Otherwise, very little trading can occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_of_wants

What are we doing? >.<

Punishing the Jobless

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&hp

Yet again, another horrible Krugman piece.

Alright think of it like this. We had a steady unemployment rate for the past years. Now we have unusually high unemployment. Our GDP/output is also unusually low.

To simply dismiss the 10% unemployment as usual laziness/lack of incentive is absolutely stupid. Is it laziness, or is it the recession?

I won't go into moral mode, and start asking what's going to happen to the 10% who are going to lose their benefits.

But what else do you have against, aside from the political opinions? It is true that the richer you are, the less you save, and more you spend. Economically that means you have a high marginal propensity to consume (MPC) and the multiplier effect is greater. In other words, giving money to the masses of unemployed is much better than giving money to a few bridge/road makers.

That guy was all over the map.  He gave average inflation of gold over the last 180 years, and last 7 years, but not the inflation rate for those periods.  And he gave us the average inflation over the last 70 years, but not for gold.  WTF, that is almost worthless information and he tries to use it to say gold doesn't do as well?  Or is he just saying that even if gold does do as well over the long term it will fluctuate vs. the monetary inflation rate?  I don't even know. 

And yeah, do you know why people in post-Katrina New Orleans weren't buying water bottles with gold?  Cause gold is fucking expensive.  If all you had was $1000 bills, I wouldn't go buying candy bars with them.  And who runs around carrying gold nuggets anyway. 

Agreed. It's like he's become a totally different person. Where he once was emphatic that Eurosclerosis was caused by cushy unemployment payments, he's now all, "Well, maybe under optimal conditions, generous unemployment benefits keep unemployment high... but fuck RepubliKKKans!!!!!!!!"

Not one bit of blame goes to the Democrats for refusing to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. Instead of compromising (you know, that thing Krugman always complains that Republicans won't do because they're hellbent on torpedoing the Obama presidency, and hey, whatever happened to that PAYGO thing on which Obama campaigned and signed into law about five months ago?), the Democrats went home for the holiday. What a fucking partisan hack he's become.

My problem is that every time I see a piece on RealClear Politics that has ANYTHING to do with 'please give us more government spending', it is ALWAYS him. He is like a washing machine on a repeat cycle. I've been reading his pieces for 3 years now, and it seems like every one since the stimulus has always been about how great the stimulus is, how we need to spend more, and how Europe is retarded for its austerity.. Very little insight about how economics works, or discussions on various changes in our economy (which every other economist does, even a Naomi Klien or Peter Schiff).

Interestingly enough, some of our friends across the Atlantic even wrote a piece attacking Krugman, and defending their austerity. It was pretty funny that a Times writer would get hammered by another paper across the ocean.

We could be reaching the end of currency as a solution to the barter problem.  Currency is one solution for getting a burger today and paying back Tuesday.  HOWEVER, you can't say it is the only solution.

Yes, as currency gold and silver have a lot of advantages.  They have very little intrinsic value, so people won't consume them or use them for other things, and they are durable, and they are pretty.  However, one doesn't know how long the collapse will lapse.  What really matters is skills you can do that will be in demand and being a strong generalist.  When the economy collapses, then there is despecialization going on, which means that a person who is top skilled in a niche area, but a weak generalist, will end up suffering.  The person with transferable skills and able to communicate, lead, and be resourceful makes it.

Hey I know this.  I am on the receiving end of that B.S.  I have no faith in Washington now, due to this.  Maybe I land part-time cleaning position.  So much for my Masters.

Well, gotta run.

Personally, I would change it to require being born on US soil to at least 'legal residents' of the U.S..

The whole anchor baby thing is massively abused.