[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, because simply throwing more money at the problem will fix it. That isn't what Krugman is saying at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/op...gman.html?_r=2

Right.... Krugman's quote there doesn't address the central reason for his objection. Because what Krugman actually wants is full nationalization of the banks, as happened in Sweden. N.B.:

Brad DeLong says that Swedish-style temporary nationalization is the right answer to a financial crisis; he’s right. I haven’t been clear enough about this, it seems, but it’s where my basic diagnosis leads: the problem is insufficient capital, you want to inject capital, but you don’t want it to be a windfall to existing stockholders — hence, take over and recapitalize the failing firms. By the way, that’s what we did with AIG 10 years days ago.
So that’s the good solution. The Paulson plan, which is some combination of sheer giveaway and mystic faith that a slap in the market’s face will make everything OK, is a bad solution (and probably no solution at all.)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-and-the-ugly/

Krugman is consistent--he's been saying this since last fall. His objection to the financial bailout is that it's insufficiently different from what Bush did--it consists of half-measures, and falls way short of the kind of nationalization that he feels is needed--and that he thinks will be the ultimate destination anyway.

More critically, here's Krugman's take on the stimulus package, which many seem to confuse with the bailout.

President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told, especially by TV news, during the run-up to the stimulus vote. Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/op...rugman.html?em

So... yeah, I kind of stand by my interpretation of Krugman's stance here. If "the stimulus is too small" really isn't what Krugman means, then why on March 8, did he say "the stimulus is too small"?