If that’s true, I’m a little more relieved. But I’d still like to see some projections of the worst case/best case damage under several scenarios. Perhaps that’s thought to be too complicated for the average joe, I don’t know.

If we “under rescue” now, how much worse and how much longer does the economy stay down? Is there a severity vs. length tradeoff? If so, let’s see it spelled out so we can make an intelligent decision about it. We might be better off with a longer, less severe recession. Or maybe the reverse is better.

Or maybe, as Krugman seems to be saying, that if it get’s TOO severe it’ll pass some theshold and become much longer lasting as well?

Like I said, I’d like to understand the possible projections that he and others have–knowing, of course, that none of these forecasts are likely to be accurate anyway. But somehow I’d feel better about the debate if I knew the underlying assumptions.

Good comments. Clearly we need new and different things (one reason for the encouragement of fuel efficient cars and renewable energy investment). But much of what you suggest is not going to bear fruit for some time, as useful as it might be.

I think Obama’s going to find an awfully tricky balancing act between immediate relief and longer-term investment, whether in traditional industries or some new paradigm.

To me its less about re-inflating the bubble than what bubble we are trying to reinflate.