krugman defende a criacao duma bolha imobiliaria :
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
From Paul Krugman, "Dubya's Double Dip?" New York Times, August 2, 2002.
Krugman critica a bolha depois de formada :
Some say the worst is already over. Mr. Greenspan, who's been an optimist all the way, now argues that the latest data on new-home sales and mortgage applications suggest that housing has already bottomed out. Business investment is still growing briskly, and so far consumers haven't cut their spending. So maybe this is as bad as it gets.
But I think the pessimists have a stronger case. There's a lot of evidence that home prices, although they've started to decline, are still way out of line. Spending on home construction remains abnormally high as a percentage of G.D.P., because banks are still lending freely in spite of rapidly rising foreclosure rates.
This means that home sales probably still have a long way to fall. And you don't want to make too much of the fact that some housing indicators have turned up; those indicators tend to bounce around a lot from month to month.
Moreover, much of the good news in the latest economic report is unsustainable at best, suspect at worst. Almost half of last quarter's estimated growth was the result of a reported surge in automobile output, which some observers think was a statistical illusion, not something that really happened.
So this is probably just the beginning. How bad can it get? Well, you don't have to go far to find grim forecasts: Merrill Lynch predicts that the unemployment rate will rise from 4.6 percent now to 5.8 percent by the end of next year.
In case you're wondering, I don't blame the Bush administration for the latest bad economic numbers. If anyone is to blame for the current situation, it's Mr. Greenspan, who pooh-poohed warnings about an emerging bubble and did nothing to crack down on irresponsible lending.
From Paul Krugman, "Bursting Bubble Blues," New York Times, October 30, 2006.
email entre Krugman e uma leitora, 2006 :
Neeraj Mehra, Amritsar, India: Mr. Greenspan has done a disservice to the nation by creating the housing boom. As a layman-observer, that’s the lingering thought I’ve had. Your article reaffirms it.
The question I have is this: Did he do the right thing — acting morally by engineering a housing boom, more as a bridge loan, until something else showed up at the horizon to shore up the economy — because he didn’t have a choice, or did he undertake a path of mere political expediency? And, that’s a question that’s nagging me for a while.
Would appreciate it if you could shed some light.
Paul Krugman: As Paul McCulley of PIMCO remarked when the tech boom crashed,
Greenspan needed to create a housing bubble to replace the technology bubble. So within limits he may have done the right thing. But by late 2004 he should have seen the danger signs and warned against what was happening; such a warning could have taken the place of rising interest rates. He didn’t, and he left a terrible mess for Ben Bernanke.
Explicacao do Krugman para o artigo de 2002 (em 2010) :
"So did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble,
which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/me-and-the-bubble/ Conclusao : criar a bolha era necessario sem reversas em 2002, em 2006 era necessario so ate 2004 e ja em 2010 nunca foi boa ideia nem ele disse nada disso.
