Shoulds Versus Coulds

I'm liking Jared Berstein's new blog. He was on Obama's economic team and gives some insights to their positions. I have to admit I'm torn on his recent post Shoulds Versus Coulds. He makes it clear it agrees with Krugman and therefore is a Keynesian. But while he appreciates liberals suggesting what we should do, he thinks it's time to suggest what we could do, that is, what would actually pass.

"Let me be clear. I totally agree that we mustn’t let “political realism” shut down our thinking on the best way out of this mess. And while that kind of writing sometimes feels academic to me, if done well (as Paul does it), it can slowly but persistently set the stage for actually doing the right thing when the political landscape shifts. Shift it will, and at that time, Paul will be among those who built the “new” paradigm from which economic policy will flow (“” around ‘new’ because most of this is known since Keynes)."

I think he's selling the effect short. It's not just "when the political landscape shifts", it's the 'should' articles that will shift it. I don't think it will shift on its own. Not with the right controlling the conversation. You know what would actually shift it? If the administration or some liberals or Keynesians in Washington, maybe a Senator with a 4+ years left, like Franken or some political appointee would actually start making the case for growing the economy with stimulus.

The Republicans are swinging for the fence asking for $4 trillion in cuts. Without any argument from the far left, the compromise will be terrible. It should be easy to make the case, the evidence is on the Democrat's side!

A year after austerity hurts the economy more, how will politicians be doing?

That being said, his follow up post mentions some Interesting “Coulds” Coming In. All are good and if they really are coulds, we should do them. We shouldn't give up on the shoulds. Unless we talk about them, they'll never happen.