<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Bartlett Agrees (Kinda) With&nbsp;Krugman]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>He offers a very <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/The-Economy/2010/07/02/Fiscal-Consolidation-Could-It-Be-Expansionary.aspx">helpful guide</a> to the newly popular theory that fiscal consolidation actually helps growth rather than smothering it. He&#39;s unconvinced:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I remain skeptical that immediate fiscal consolidation is desirable; I  think the case for additional short-term stimulus is much stronger. (The  necessity of long-term fiscal adjustment is unquestioned.) But if  stimulus is effectively impossible, as I believe it is, we may have no  choice but to test the theory that consolidation can be expansionary. I  am inclined to think that there is a greater likelihood that we would be  repeating the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/07/deficit-great-depression-recovery-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html" target="_blank">fiscal error of 1937</a>, in which a sharp fiscal  contraction brought on a recession, than that we will get the sort of  results achieved in small countries starting with high inflation and  interest rates. But if we go the consolidation route, we should at least  try to concentrate as much of it as possible on the spending side of  the budget, which is the one thing that every study says is essential  for success.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>