OECD claim that stimulative policy is largely exhausted; hence we have to go structural



<p style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; text-align: left; ">On the OECD's claim that stimulative economic policy is "largely exhausted; therefore, we have to 'go structural': Paul Krugman: [I]t’s just that can’t-do spirit.... [T]he report writes as if a period of 4 percent inflation rather than 2 percent inflation would be a terrible thing... it would be really horrible if we had inflation at the same rate as prevailed during Morning in America.... [O]ne of the main arguments for higher inflation when you’re facing a zero lower bound [is that] it would reduce real interest rates.... Third... a period of modestly higher inflation would help reduce that private debt overhang, which would help promote economic recovery, which would in turn raise revenues and help the fiscal situation. In sum, the case for higher inflation is vastly better than the OECD is willing to acknowledge."