Guest Post: Paul Krugman The Marxist

Submitted by James E. Miller via The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

Someone once wrote that criticizing economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is the internet’s favorite pastime. I, too, have engaged in the sport – with no success of changing what Robert Higgs calls the “vulgar Keynesianism” that dirties the Grey Lady’s editorial page. To the betterment of my pride, nobody else has had much luck in the arena of ideas either. Krugman continues to carry the torch of excuses for the Democratic Party while lampooning the bigoted, racist, old, white, and rich GOP.

All along, the Princeton prof has stayed true to the cause of aggressive government action to forestall the downtrodden economy. Large fiscal expenditures, aggressive monetary stimulus, increased legal privileges for organized labor, and boosting the degree of state pillaging – Krugman is the caricature of a tyrannical apologizer who will defend the cause of rampant statism at any cost. He has been accused of being a communist, socialist, a Democratic shill, and every other leftist insult that might exist. Much of this is done in a tongue-and-cheek style. Still, the underlying charge of Krugman being a vehement statist willing to justify any and all government action remains accurate. Basically, there is little activity Uncle Sam could do that he wouldn’t approve of.

But now, it appears Krugman has gone overboard with his progressive moaning. In a recent column, he laments, once again, over the fact that some people make more money than others. The wealth inequality canard – which is favored by every leftist under the sun – has become a tiresome ploy at this point. I think Krugman knows this, so he proceeds to justify his indignation by bringing some new evidence into the mix. Now things start getting interesting.

Calling his latest screed “Profits and Production,” Krugman tells us how the 21st century economy has changed in “fundamental ways.” The factors causing the market malaise we are currently witnessing should, as the Keynes disciple suggests, force us into placing less emphasis on the historical episodes and change our thinking all together. In sum, Krugman is suggesting that this time is indeed different, and that public policy responses to such instances as the Great Depression and Japan’s infamous Lost Decade are not very useful.

It’s a good rule of thumb that when a commentator makes mention of something being “new,” and thus radically changing existing principles, a heavier dose of skepticism is in order. At first, Krugman’s reasoning is similar to the quote by John Maynard Keynes “when the facts change, I change my mind.” And at some level, that mode of thinking makes sense when attempting to deduct the causal reasons behind any predicament. But Krugman does not appear to be using it in that manner. For the Nobel Laureate, the abundance of monopoly rents – “profits that don’t represent returns on investment” – is driving a destructive wedge between “profits and production.” Then comes the kicker: workers are no longer benefitting from the kind of consumer goods which are selling in the modern economy. Using the example of devilishly capitalist Apple, Krugman makes the point that despite not employing a large workforce like General Motors in the mid-twentieth century, the gadget giant is making money hand-over-fist. Why is this a bad thing? Because Apple sits on a large pile of cash while refusing to invest in its productive capacity. Thus, the cash flow stays intact without being recycled back into the economy. The increased existence of companies like Apple is acting as an albatross on the economic recovery as it leads to less income in the hands of working households.

There are a myriad of fallacies in this reasoning that could be brought to light and demolished if given ample thought and effort. For instance, the idea of monopoly rents that allow producers to earn a profit without having to exert much effort is complete balderdash. For that condition to maintain itself on a free market requires government intervention, e.g. intellectual property patents or state contracts. Otherwise, the capital components which produce goods and services must pay for themselves or else the owner runs the risk of bankruptcy. Just because Apple, in Krugman’s words, “seems barely tethered to the material world” does not mean the labor and capital it employs possess some kind of infinite, cash-garnering power. For Krugman to label this business model a “monopoly” implies that every business is in fact a monopoly, given that one person cannot physically work in two places at once.

I would rather not get bogged down in the economic imbecility that frequents Krugman’s twice-weekly diatribes. There is a fallacy more fundamental in this latest theorizing. What Krugman is embracing in his latest attack on historical cases has much more to do with the man’s epistemological bent and approach toward economics. By claiming the prevalence of labor-less capitalists changes how everyone should think about economics is so far removed from sound judgement, it is pure Marxism. And no; that is not a descriptional error.

Marx’s idea of history and evolution stems from the foundation that all metaphysical principles are changing and not absolute – the exception being his own material version of Hegelian dialectic. That contradiction in itself was never addressed by communism’s father or his followers. It was accepted as true, thus laying the groundwork to build upon the intellectual revolution of the proletariat. Marx claimed the day would inevitably come that man would throw off his bourgeois shackles and take back his production from those who parasitically reap its benefits. There was to be no stopping this inexorable onslaught of history’s powerful wave. Life would proceed, as Murray Rothbard, put it, “in which one stage gives rise inevitably to a later and opposing stage.” This persistence of fluid change meant that nothing – including truths of social sciences – was permanent. As Friedrich Engels, Marx’s financier and partner in intellectual arms, writes,

“For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher.”

This is the lens through which Marx saw the world, and the transitory process for which capitalism gives way to earthly communism. The capitalists would eventually  expropriate the gains of the workers to a point where the entire system would come crashing down. To Marx and his theory of historical materialism, the driving force of change was advancement in productive capacity. The extending of the global division of labor would establish social classes between the populace – namely workers versus the capitalists. Consciousness in the way which man saw himself was explained, in Marx’s words, “from the contradictions of material life.” So if the workers caught on to the terribleness of the lot they were given in the marketplace, a rising up would occur to fulfill history’s course. It sounds eerily similar to the notion that the swelling of monopoly rent status in the 21st century has flipped all previous knowledge on its head, and demands a full review of the dilemma at hand.

I am unable to say if Krugman actually believes that a utopian communism will eventually engulf the planet. But the basis on which he makes his latest argument finds its root in the philosophy of Karl Marx. Decrying the success of Apple and its supposed war on middle class workers is demonstrative of the Princeton professor’s logic. He sees exploitation, in the form of an efficient business model, giving way to a need for government interference. The praxeological established rules of economics are of no consideration. That universal truth is now fiction.

The best refutation to the theory of historical materialism is the fact that capitalist gains have not enslaved the masses but actually set them free from the moribund scarcity that defined much of mankind’s early existence. We will never reach a state of superabundance as predicted by Marx’s followers. But the infinite ignorance which comes from the depths of Paul Krugman’s mind might actually think so – if you actually believe the state can provide something for nothing.

Comments

[flacon]

Krugman In Coma After Eating 413 Red Lobster Biscuits

http://www.newstalkflorida.com/man-in-coma-after-eating-413-red-lobster-biscuits/

[xtop23]

All of this is Bernanke's fault. If he'd simply gone bigger everything would be fixed.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks and he is utterly incapable of seeing things any differently.

Such an inelastic mind should not have the following that he does. The guy is a herpes outbreak on the shaft of economic thought.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail and all that.

Trillion dollar Platinum coins, anyone?

[erg]

And all round douche-bag. He said so himself. All litigations should wend toward said ZH moniker.

[ACP]

Correct...but Marxist may be a little too highbrow a term for us primitive libertarians. I prefer to just call them dickheads.

Oh yeah, and the dynamic duo - aka the Krugman-Bernanke Dream Team - should be fondly named the Assfuck Twins for the trillion dollar linen dildo they've shoved up the ass of every US taxpayer.

Pardon my Czech, but it's been a long day, I've had a half dozen beers, and I'm pissed.

[Fish Gone Bad]

The government should spend a bunch of money on a great big rocket to shoot up Krugman's ass and send him into the sun where at least can be turned into energy and brighten our lives.

[SoundMoney45]

Ignore Krugman.  He is meerly a useful idiot spouting propaganda. Sadly, he may actually believe his gibberish.

[Big Slick]

Other prominent Nobel laureates:

Yasser Araft

Kofi (Food for Oil) Annan

Jimmy Carter

Al Gore

Barak Obama

Quite a collection of effective policy makers and mental giants.

When you see a list like that, you get a better idea of what the Nobel Prize is all about

[rustymason]

Don't forget Woodrow Wilson, Nelson Mandela, Yitzhak Rabin, Koffee Anon, Shimon Peres, E. Lie Weasel, Kissinger, Menachem Bagel, and Willem Traitor de Klerk. The main qualification for the Nobel committee's consideration seems to be that you must be a lying, thieving, murdering, anti-Western lunatic.

[Anasteus]

Absolutely, the gibberish is the food for the pundits to divert the attention of real issues.

But one thing is worth noticing... he doesn't mention the word 'bank' anywhere in his column. Instead he's lamenting over lack of money flow by putting shame on Apple and basically on all companies sitting on big pile of money. If I'm reading between the lies correctly, he's just started announcing the dawn of the upcoming recession by redirecting the failure from banks to companies. Which is fully within the scope of his agenda.

[TruthInSunshine]

A true gem found by ZH from the not-so-way-back-machine that is yet another piece of damning evidence (in a literal mountain high stockpile of such pieces of evidence) establishing Krugman's irrefutable status as one of the world's biggest LIARS, HYPOCRITES & DOUCHEBAGS [and I DARE any of the Jonestown-like Krugmanite cultists to admit that your idol is anything other than a lying sack of shit):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/a-fiscal-train-wreck.html

A Fiscal Train Wreck

_{With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.}

_{From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly, the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts, which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.}

_{Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.}

_{And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account -- as the C.B.O. cannot -- the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.}

_{So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.}

_{A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: ''When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises.'' Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.}

_{But what's really scary -- what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea -- is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.}

_{That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 -- make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 -- percent of G.D.P. But that misses the point. ''Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security), which does its accounting on a cash basis, only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting . . . is an accident waiting to happen.'' So says the Treasury under secretary Peter Fisher; his point is that because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest.}

_{Of course, Mr. Fisher isn't allowed to draw the obvious implication: that his boss's push for big permanent tax cuts is completely crazy. But the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident -- the fiscal train wreck -- is already under way.}

_{How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.}

_{And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won't happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.}

_{I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared -- the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that ''a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living'' -- investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I've done the math, and reached my own conclusions -- and I've locked in my rate.}

- Paul Krugman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Economics, Professor of Economics at Princeton, Proponent of 77 trillion USD "When Mars Attacks" Stimulus Pan, Endorser-In-Chief of Greenspan's Blowing of Housing Bubble v1.0, and all-around Douchebag

March 11, 2003

[newengland]

Crookman is a self- serving pig. The BIS is not amused.

[Big Slick]

Pedro schools Krugman... the best 16 minutes you'll watch today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8LmE5cfQKA

Krugman responds in pointless and intellect-less defensive glory at end

[kahunabear]

Wow, I knew he was a douche bag. This really confirms it. 

[thisandthat]

Nobel Laureate

Haha... what?

[iDealMeat]

Yep..  Nobel Laureate in Economics.  The only thing the Nobel Committee could possibly do to further embarrass themselves is award O'droner a peace prize..

[TruthInSunshine]

I am going to be redundant and repeat a selection of Krugman's essay that I pasted above, just because it can't be overemphasized what a lying, hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt sham he is:

The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account -- as the C.B.O. cannot -- the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion. ***[_{3 trillion 10 year deficit? Shit, Krugs, those were the GOOD OLE' DAYS, and not that long ago, BITCH}).

_{So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.}

_{A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: ''When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises.'' Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.}

_{But what's really scary -- what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea -- ***is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.}

That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 -- make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 -- percent of G.D.P.***

***I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance.*** Even though the business community is starting to get scared -- the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that ''a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living'' ***-- investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic.*** But I've done the math, and reached my own conclusions -- and I've locked in my rate.

See that, everyone?  Before Obamney was in office, an annual budget deficit of 2%, 3% or 4% of GDP was enough for Krugman to shout "the U.S.A. is headed for insolvency!!!!" from the roof top of the New York Times or Princeton.

But with Obamney in office, with annual budget deficits that have been as larger as 10% (or up to 500% higher than those which inspired Krugman to shout "insolvency!!!" and that caused him to label the U.S. a "banana republic"), it's not only no cause for alarm, but we should be deficit spending at a MUCH HIGHER RATE.

2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1539.22 Billion Deficit D D D 2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1386.92 Billion Deficit D D D 2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1350.31 Billion Deficit D D R 2012 $1100 Billion Deficit $1120.16 Billion Deficit D D R

Anyone dare tell me that Krugman isn't all the bad, nasty things I called him, and many, many more reprehensible things I haven't, also?

Krugman is Mr. Hankey from South Park, and he along with his shit for brains, shit for research, and shit-stained cumulative life's work, should be flushed down the shitter, stat.

[dogfish]

Krugman is just a tool,a hoe.

[Shevva]

Top rant Truth, it needs more he's a sack-o-shit though.

[iDealMeat]

T.S.  I'm Sure the handle " Lucifer " is already taken..  However, I ask on your behalf that you inherit and assume that ID.

It suits you, on so many levels..

Truth, in Light...

[Morla]

Uh, Tyler, why not do a post on this instead?

[Anusocracy]

Governments make the most profit with the least production.

[Harbanger]

They seem to be very good at producing misery for all except the well "connected".   What does "profit" even mean when professional politcians have the power to define us?

[newengland]

Crookman's pay depends on him remaining studiously ignorant of the effects of his failed theories upon those who fund his lifestyle.

[Harbanger]

He's not ignorant of the effects of his theories, he's very much complicit.  Liberalism is insidious and consumes everything in it's path.

[de3de8]

How did the USA get here? The future is not bright.

[zorba THE GREEK]

This guy belongs in a home for retards. Pardon my language. 

[erg]

He's the guy that threw the water cooler through the window and got away.

[Fish Gone Bad]

Paul Krugman, retard.  Has a pretty good ring to it.

[wisehiney]

First pelousi and now this ass wipe. Great, here come the nightmares.

[roadlust]

This post and the one above it, certainly represent the average economic sophistication of ZH commentators.

[newengland]

And sophistry suits your sort so well, bankrupt.

[Harbanger]

I like you newengland, you speak your mind, admit your mistakes and look for the truth.  You're a NE lady and you seem to be sincerely patriotic.  I respect that.

[newengland]

Blush...

I like ZHers for their honesty too. The world is a contest of ideas, and a team effort, it seems to me. I despise hubris, and the cruelty it makes by whatever political name it uses to excuse its failings.

Once upon a time, we had a Republic, for better or worse. The people's place, for better or worse:  evolution, no more revolution after the Civil War. It's wrong to kill our own, or any other land, in my opinion.

  That  ended in 1913 when the un-Federal no-Reserve Bored was founded in the USA, contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even the President of that time (Wilson) lived long enough to lament taking the money of those international financiers who looked upon the USA as just another pawn in their global chess board.

I am sorry to say that the Rockefellers of the north east are traitors, then and now.

The world is a contest of ideas...

[marathonman]

Sorry, but I don't believe that Wilson was capable of feeling regret.  He was a statist scum bag that knew what he was doing.  Hope he's enjoying the sulfur...

[ebworthen]

roadlust said:  "This post and the one above it, certainly represent the average economic sophistication of ZH commentators."

If economic sophistication means surrendering myself to the whims of a bearded potato who believes that debt leads to growth and the suspension of the rule-of-law to good things I am proud to be a simple man in the eyes of modern economists.

[dvduval]

With a word like "epistemological" used in the lead in I knew I would be showered with wisdom far surpassing that of Krugman. Unforunatley, we were presented with a myriad of devilish balderdash, to reuse the authors words to describe his own article. 

[buzzsaw99]

It attacks krugman without a single quote from him. Worthless hit piece.

[Pareto]

So, Buzz, what are you after?  Redistribution?  What part of Krugman (Keynes) did he have wrong?  Fucking spot on as far as I could tell.

[buzzsaw99]

Beat on the krug punching bag all you want but imo without specifics the piece was retard drivel.

[booboo]

Wonder if they can do a "Dinner with Schmucks 2" with the this guy Krugman as a guest, who ever he is he makes for some good water head action.

[Manic by Proxy]

Since the GW's opinion piece included the link to Krugman's column, as well as reasonable paraphrasing, it is safe to conclude that reading comprehension may not be your strongest suit. Here's a philosophical question for you: can you discern where Krugman's anal mucosa ends and your labial mucosa begins?

[Morla]

Water under the bridge now, as Krugman's credibility was checkmated one move later anyway by the 2003 article TruthInSunshine linked above.

[stiler]

Marx and Satan, by Richard Wurmbrand, .

[roadlust]

What's wrong with Marx?   Because capitalism has been working out so well?

Nevermind. 

[xtop23]

"As a rule, Capitalism is blamed for the undesired effects of a policy directed at its elimination."

Ludwig Von Mises

[alangreedspank]

My fave go to quote for dizzied individuals.

[in4mayshun]

When is the last time we had true Capitalism? Certainly not in my lifetime.

[Oppressed In Ca...]

Check out Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc ....Idiot!

[xtop23]

Just to play Devil's advocate here and keep it real..... those aren't really examples of true Communism either.

[newengland]

How about thorough going communism...uhhh...it doesn't exist. Good. It is time for adults to stop thinking like children, and accept personal responsibility. Want something? Pay for it.

The central banks created by the old hofjuden of the British and European monarchies and vatican do not want to pay their way, and do so very much like taxes, bail outs, war, and the majority making excuses for their latest political idol.  eCONomists like Crookman put a coat on the naked emperor.

[Harbanger]

They are all examples of the failures of statists and their brilliant centrally planned ideas.  Call it what you want.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

"True communism" is, literally, like the equation 1=0. It can't exist in reality, only as marks on paper.

[xtop23]

Agreed. It coincided nicely with the conversation where the lack of a true free market Capitalism example was being discussed and that if America ever truly resembled such, it's been MANY years since its existence domestically.

Although of the two; I find true Capitalism has a significantly greater chance of reality than true Communism.

One, for all intents and purposes, is a fantasy.

The other, the half life of an honest politician.

[Lebensphilosoph]

Well, yes. They are examples of socialism implemented by Marxists perceiving this form of governemnt to be the necessary precursor to the inevitable dissolution of the state in a communist utopia. The ones Americans called "communists" called themselves "socialists", and that's what they were - socialists of a stripe.

[marathonman]

There is no example of true communism.  It's a completely bullshit ideology.  No one can implement it succesfully.  It's just a way to lock up control of resources for the party faithful.  It's just another totalitarian scam.  Good grief, can we get back to basics here?

[alangreedspank]

'true' capitalism nor 'true' communism cannot exist. There always will be people ready to use of violence to further their ends. Knowing that, having a big government or even government at all is risky.

Then again, it WAS true communism. True communism filtered through the inevitable human nature. It's like staring at a quater in the bottom of a pool; doesn't look like a quater (comes out wobbly and distorted) but, are you willing to deny it's a quarter ?

[Fish Gone Bad]

What's wrong with Marx?

Marx was pretty much an unemployed, blow hard, fat ass, date rapist, living off the goodwill of others.  He was re-incarnated as Charles Manson.

[alangreedspank]

Yup. His views of the "capitalists" was strongly influenced by his own failures and ability to earn leverage (ie: worthy skills) in the workforce.

Which is why Marx works so well with teens: they, naturally, have no skills and feel powerless. Unfotunately, nobody tells them this is normal and they should work at acquiring skills and has time moves on, they will be able to make employers bend over for their business if they play their cards right.

BTW: Don't start a comment with italics, people can't up/down vote.

[newengland]

What's wrong with Marx? OK, baby. How much must you suffer before answering that question yourself instead of allowing endless war.

Marx was funded by the Rothschilds, the hofjuden, the world's richest family; bankers to monarchy who want to retain feudalism, and your sort are 'useful idiots' in the words of Lenin who was also funded by the Rothschilds, the hofjuden, the old monarchies of Britain and Europe.

They like your sort of ignorant debt slave.

[StandardDeviant]

"Capitalism" is hardly what we have today, in any Western country.  But even if that were so, things can always get worse.  Much, much worse.

[kchrisc]

Baby Huey with a Nobel (Krugman): "Babble, babble, babble, their dick in your ass, babble babble, babble. What didn't you understand?!"

My point is that we should just ignore him as he has nothing of value to offer but more excuses for the criminals' thefts and murders and will be a lonely and hunted individual when the crash comes.

[knukles]

Paul's roles in life are simple.
One is to feed (and become quite wealthy from) his diatribing in the NYT, salving the guilty consciences of the Limousine Liberal Class, and their New Royalty, the governmental employeeship.
Second is a significant target (readily deserved) for scorn and ridicule for some of the most illogical, self centered, insecure and utterly nonsensical rubbish ever promulgated as "economics"

I rest my case.

[Wanton1]

This guy has a New American Dream.

To replace Ye Olde American Dream.

[newengland]

He serves imperialism, the old feudalism, dressed up with a new brand name.

[Lebensphilosoph]

Ummm ... imperialism and feudal society are two entirely diferent things. And feudalism involves an hereditary aristocracy and a social order founded in and guided by absolute spiritual principles, none of which exists in a materialist bourgeois oligarchy.

[tony bonn]

krugman is a nazi who can go gas himself....what a slimy piece of crap

[Hohum]

Krugman, Marxist, whatever.  The Austrian have no plan at all to increase GDP faster than debt, except a childish faith that there are all these people out there ready to create wealth spontaneously.  Back the faith up with some examples?  Heck, no, too busy spouting off my theory for the 100th time.

[newengland]

You and your sort are dim, 'hohum'.

[Manic by Proxy]

Your post is illiterate and is classic straw man argument. Pathetic. Please return to MSNBC

[ebworthen]

The Austrian's would prefer that a person keep the majority of the fruits of their labor.

The likes of Krugman prefer to live off the fruits of other peoples' labor.

[icanhasbailout]

In Krugman's world, people live off of promises to labor at some future date that will never arrive, in some job that will never exist.

[prains]

You can't throw around theses words anymore _ Marxists_that word has been co opted so many fucking times its the Tanya Harding of intellectual discourse. Fuck all the "isms" and all the 'ists". If we need a reset then we need a reSET.

Trying to chase these words is like trying to catch a squirrel by throwing your underwear at it. At some point you just have to say fuck it _ do over.

[Fish Gone Bad]

At 2 AM there are no ugly squirrels.  At least not to other squirrels.

[newengland]

+1 for humor, a virtue beyond price. Many a true word spoken in jest, said ol' Bill Shake a spear.

[kato]

The Marx & Engels comparisons [by this guy and others] are a bit intellectually weak: krugman is just intellectually weak.

There were many revolutions in Europe of the late 1840's and Marx and Engels were astute observers of the time, even if much of what they wrote about economics is hard to read, not particularly relevant to economics and not a cohesive economic philosophy: they are an interesting period piece (who got more attention than they deserved because the 'pestilence' that was Lenin [someone of note called him that] was shuttled across Germany in a sealed train). Krugman is kind of like Jim Cramer, just with a bit more polish and on somewhat different subjects: both want to be loved, both want to be seen as being 'right' (as in correct), both are shallow.

This guy should stick to writing about Canada. Tell us about Frank McKenna: he was an excellent Liberal politician.

[Fish Gone Bad]

Karl Marx got his secretary (that someone hired and paid for him) pregnant.  I found the Communist Manifesto to be some drunk-a-log ramblings of an angry, lonely, bitter man.  Marx was a con man living off the good graces of others.  Lenin was his enabler.

[newengland]

The modern Rothschild hofjuden  certainly knew how to pick their fancy sophist pets then, and now.

Although I do think that the original Mayer Amschel Rothschild would be most unhappy that his successors ignored his warnings.

[GreatUncle]

Marx & Engels

They may have thought this or that. They did not have the treasure trove of internet articles to hypothesize. Very hard to form a conclusion when only what you see and feel is limited to such a small piece of the jigsaw. For example without the internet how would you know gold ETF's look dodgy, that printing vast amounts of money without a computer to visualise the magnitude of it all. Let alone the sheer scale of the derivatives market.

Likely they fell back on their small ideology that became warped and very wrong if not enough is known of the big picture.

Today we know the fed is creating 85billion a month that is 85,000,000,000 and that the US debt is near 17,000,000,000,000. Throw those numbers about a century ago and it may as well been pennies because you cannot grasp the sheer scale of it.

That argument makes Krugman look?

The technology really puts the cat among the pidgeons on understanding.

[newengland]

Crookman is a shill for foreigners, the international central banks who want to own and dominate all people in all lands, and endless war is their favorite tool. He just likes to sugar coat the poison.

Nothing he writes has ever proven to be beneficial for the majority, but it does serve his failed Internationale. Keynes was a sadistic sodomite employed by the Rotschilds to put a coat on naked imperialism, as per the will of the hofjuden, vatican, and old British and european monarchy money.

George Soros the AshkenNAZI who admits stealing from jews in his youth and remains a major funder of the Democrats is a fan of Crookman.

Marx was funded by the Rothschilds, the world's richest bankers. So was Lenin. 

Crookman is ridiculous.

[Yen Cross]

     Where has "Krug-Bear-Pig" been anyways? I guess my fellow ZHers scared him back into his "Keynesian Coffin."

[knukles]

His shit ain't working of late so theres no way he can show his persona here without being flung the troof which hurts... and it seems it's not late enough in the evening, yet...
Some of "us" will understand that oblique reference

[q99x2]

No one ever acuses Krugman of being a man.

Dildo with dead batteries, yes, but, man no.

[Freddie]

Paul Krugman The Marxist

LOL!  I love the Tylers.  They ridicule, demean, humiliate and torment this evil evil idiot Paul Krugman on a daily basis.  I love it.  He deserves our scorn plus a rope and a lamp post.

[kahunabear]

I don't doubt this one bit.

[Crash Overide]

It kind of makes me sad that anyone would even listen to a guy like Krugman considering his track record and the circles he walks in. His mindless dribble is exhausting and doesn't serve the greater good of humanity. I wish there was a switch so we could turn him off. Just saying...

[GreatUncle]

Krugman is naive and blind on 2 points.

Where the inflationary model (watcha want to call Keynes) broke down was government borrowing to pay the interest on the debt and the increasing technological efficiency of the system meaning you need less people to achieve the same productivity level. Exactly why does a government pay interest when the route for capitalist wealth should be investing in the economy as a whole and achieving a return. The wealthy elites should only achieve a return and the prized wealth through investment in the economy not the interest on the lending to government that should have been taxed ===== 0 interest. That is ignoring the outsourcing through free trade abroad and the tax havens.

The increasing productivity issue you can do nothing about though but this is the only thing that should increase government borrowing. Government played a blinder and the sucker position, who you going to pay? Those with nothing to carry on existing or the interest on the debt. Where governments ability to even pay the interest on the debt is eventually stuffed with ever increasing efficiency.

So instead it makes those with nothing to live on live on nothing and TBH a bullet is cheaper.

Krugmans model of Keynes is flawed, he believes that government should borrow and pay interest on the debt where the thing fast catching up is the increased productivity. Hence Krugman and his interpretation of Keynes walk into pincer trap that nobody can escape from not the government, wealthy elites or the ordinary and poor people with interest on one side and increasing efficiency. 

[newengland]

The problem with Krugman and Keynes is that their failed theories are  total A grade bull$hit. Lots of fancy words to put lipstick on a pig: the old feudalists, same as the new feudalists; the hofjuden for the monarchies of bankrupt Britain, Europe and vatican.

[newengland]

Let's be blunter.

Krugman is a shill. So is the New York Times. They serve an Internationale of foreigners, and George Soros is the major funder and promoter of the 'Democrat' Party, a monopoly after the Communist Party of the USA disbanded, saying that the 'Democrat' Party had adopted its ways.

This is George Soros in his own words:

"If there was ever a man who would fit the stereotype of the Judeo-plutocratic Bolshevik Zionist world conspirator, it is me" - item #6 (Sydney Morning Herald interview, November 15, 1997, Spectrum Features section, soon after the Asia Crisis). 

So it should be no surprise that a lowly eCONomist like Crookman studiously plays dumb when it suits him, and wise when others script his words, pull his purse strings.

[geewhiz]

He may be lowly but he has a gift for feeding the specious the goy. the man is a specialist, you have to give him that.

[cape_royds]

"The Communist Manifesto" makes better reading today than at any time in the past 60 years. Marx has rarely looked smarter than he does now.

Who could call Marx a "period piece," unless they are referring to our current period? Because the world we live in today is the world described in the first chapter of "The Commuist Manifesto." Marx was able to neatly summarize the entire concept of modern globalization in a mere couple of pages. It makes uncanny reading with a very contemporary feel.

What is Zero Hedge about, if not how central banks have been, in Marx' words, "paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented" ?

Marx was the inspirational force behind Austrian economics. The Austrians all hate Marx' guts, nevertheless their work is largely based on his.

What is funny is that Marx was first of all a historian, and only secondarily a political economist. Marx' micro-economic work was all a mere retrofit to try to provide a theoretical underpinning to Marx' historical theory. Marxian micro, while interesting, is flawed and inadequate. But Marx' macro-historical theory was never based upon, and in no way depends upon, Marxian micro-economics.

"The Communist Manifesto" was the original and independent theory at a grand scale. "Capital" was his later attempt to provide a full technical elaboration down to the smallest scale. "Capital" was a very ambitious work; it would be as if Darwin hadn't been content to talk about natural selection, and had instead later offered his own theory of molecular genetics.

Today's economists are micro-technicians first, and macro-historians second--if they are not altogether Cliophobic! As a result, when they study Marx, they tend to ignore the broad classical and medieval historical background of Marx, and instead focus themselves on the various inadequacies of Marx' subsidiary work in micro-economics. Brad Delong's critiques of Marx are the best example of this tendency among bourgeois economists. I find that only Fernand Braudel could offer a worthwhile critique of Marxian historical theory, but of course Braudel himself was first of all an historian.

It is worth bearing in mind that in Marxian dialectic the bourgeoisie are deemed to be one of the most dynamic social elites ever found in history. Most of the Marx' writings are not about communism or socialism, but instead concern capitalism and capitalists.

Marx doesn't really hate the bourgeoisie. He just points out that the behaviour of an elite class tends to create circumstances in which that elite class can no longer maintain their position, and that the bourgeoisie are probably not going to be an exception to that tendency.

Marx also speculates on the possibility that control of productive capital could be eventually distributed very widely among the people, and that this situation would indeed come about because of the great success of the bourgeoisie in centralizing so much wealth and property in so few hands.

Keynes' work, on the other hand, is mostly about ways the bourgeoisie can try to wriggle out of Marxian dialectic. Keynes hated the idea of socialism. Keynes hoped that counter-cyclical behaviour, directed by a managerial elite drawn from among the bourgeoisie, would be able to mitigate class struggle and thus preserve bourgeois society and culture for an indefinite period. Keynesian welfare-statism was meant to inoculate bourgeois society against the germ of Communism. Keynes was trying to rescue the bourgeoisie from themselves. His work was a tour de force, but judging from his latter-day adherents, his work was in vain.

Krugman, like most so-called "Keynesians" today, is merely a half-assed Keynesian. How can you tell? Easy. None of today's so-called "Keynesians" ever called for tightening of fiscal or monetary policy during years of expansion. If someone doesn't know that, then they just don't understand Keynes.

BTW that's the fatal flaw in Keynes' reasoning--how could a managerial elite, drawn from among the bourgeoisie, ever find the wherewithal to tighten during good times? Keynes expected at least a few among the bourgeois to understand Duty--at least to their own kind.

But as we know, and have had abundantly confirmed for us in our own day, Greed and Fear are the only two moral polarities that a bourgeois can ever understand. That bourgeois can go counter-cyclic and advocate stimulus during bad times is easy to predict, because that's just their Fear at work. But how can a bourgeois ever overcome his Greed, unless under the dictate of some Greater Fear? That's why a bourgeois enjoying good times can never do any counter-cyclical tightening. In good times, the bourgeois is not afraid! When they're not gripped by Fear, then the bourgeois can never do anything but More Greed. That's why Keynes' earnest hopes to save his beloved bourgeosie were likely doomed from the start.

[newengland]

One problem with your verbosity: Marx was a shill for the international financiers, the old feudalists - the hofjuden of British, European monarchies and vatican -  who make money off all sides of war, famine, subjugation. He was part of the problem, not the solution. They paid him to put lipstick on their pig.

You've been had.

Pay closer attention to the main financier and promoter of the Democrat Party, George Soros in his own words:

"If there was ever a man who would fit the stereotype of the Judeo-plutocratic Bolshevik Zionist world conspirator, it is me" - item #6 (Sydney Morning Herald interview, November 15, 1997, Spectrum Features section, soon after the Asia Crisis). 

Soros works for the Rothschilds, by the way. The Rothschilds are the world's richest family, the hofjuden for the old feudalists of British and European monarchies.

The BIS is not amused, and dislikes incompetence most.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

You give Marx entirely too much credit. It's not difficult to catalog the worst parts of human nature and put a bullshit philosophy around that. He's a fucking nihilist. Everything about Marx can be summed up thusly: 1=0.

[They trynna cat...]

Exactly. Marx was a sophist and his entire world view was a joke to anyone with common sense.

If you haven't heard this yet, you must:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnBQUJJ-7iE

[They trynna cat...]

The fatal flaw with your analysis of Marx is that you fail to acknowledge that Marxism is never in practice what it purports to be in theory, and in fact has always everywhere in the world it was tried turned into hyper crony-capitalism, control of all state wealth by a small dictatorial group "the Party."

[ZH11]

So if Krugman, say, tomorrow starts going around calling himself an avowed Austrian economist, despite everything he's done or said in his career to date, does this mean the Austrian School of Economics will be shown to be completely flawed and thus completely proven to be wrong as a school of thought?

[Lebensphilosoph]

One small problem with that ...

Dialectical materialism is an intellectually bankrupt philosophy, founded in a false epistemology and erroneous metaphysics.

[Lebensphilosoph]

No, Marx is not just a nihilist. He's a positively moralising nihilist.

[ZH11]

Great reply!

[ebworthen]

If I had the bearded Potatoes' address and could afford it I'd send him a black tulip and some South Seas certificates.

[newengland]

Krugman and the New York Times serve the entity which says this:

"If there was ever a man who would fit the stereotype of the Judeo-plutocratic Bolshevik Zionist world conspirator, it is me" - item #6 (Sydney Morning Herald interview, November 15, 1997, Spectrum Features section, soon after the Asia Crisis). 

So said George Soros, the major funder and promoter of the 'Democrat' Party, a monopoly after the Communist Party of the USA disbanded, saying that the 'Democrat' Party had adopted its agenda.

Krugman and the New York Times are shills for international financiers who care nothing for any land or people, but serve only the hofjuden of the old monarchies of Britain and Europe and the vatican.

The BIS is not amused with the vanity and hubris of incompetents.

[NidStyles]

Oh, I can't wait to hear what Tom Woods has to say about this one.

[CEOoftheSOFA]

All of this BS about companies hoarding cash and not putting it to work is a complaint that was made by another Marxist, FDR. So I guess the times haven't changed much at all since 1932.

[falak pema]

I hate these Ideological wars where one guy says in theoretical, obscurantist logic based on economic dogma, not economic reality, that solution A is the only way and solution B is the devil's way; about a social science which is not true science as intertwined with human greed, passion and prejudice.

1° Economia is controlled by the power matrix; whatever its origins, its a subservient tool of power regulation and never an expression of "free markets". The latter is as delusionary as "free will" of individual on political front, unfortunately. All political exercise has more to do with Machiavelli's principle of  : "as human nature is fundamentally evil and divine law and divine rights are smoke and mirrors, the end justifies the means to any Prince who grabs power for himself to be top of the heap" -- than to Montesquieu's principle of the spirit of rule of law and true separation of powers in society.

In this context, rules are made by the Matrix to fit the official pattern of "general good". As being elected to power in name of people they have to be perceived as playing by the rules, then these rules are diluted by parallel rules that make them, the fundamental laws, nul and void in specific cases, allowing the power matrix to escape their application FAIRLY to themselves.

Then, in situations of crisis other rules are made, this time secet only known to the cognoscenti in power, and finally, to further enhance their own power as Princes, illegal measures are allowed to hide their own steps and keep the "pristine face of the republic clean". That is in esence the experience of 5 centuries of "reason of state" governing our world since the renaissance days.

"The Illegal you do immediately the unconstitutional needs more massaging". Well said, Prince of Machiavelli. As thus played by NSA today before our eyes to try and hide the true matrix under the carpet of "vital strategic security aims"; you know the ones which have been imposed by parallel rules, aka patriot act (unconstitutional) and illegal ones (drone the bastard).

2° The historical threads of power in the stand off in the industrial economic power game, which are the richest veins of post industrial society, as land and agriculture became marginal, were MIC (big stick), energy (oil), money line (banks/fiat) and strategic consumer products (cars, planes trains etc; today Internet toys and algos). These had to be controlled by the matrix and have been to a large extent, until greed got the better of them and they started outsourcing to enhance their own interests to summits unknown, like in ancient Rome. We are now there.

These current economic theorists are just our new witch doctors, Shamans, concocting new theories to fit the matrix pattern. What relative fundamental truths there are get bent by the MAtrix power prerogatives in the rinse n wash  of recurrent power plays. Oligarchy vs people has been the social divide since Rome and Optimates confronted Populares in the Senate; like before in Athens. Nothing has changed. We have to give Marx credit for pointing that out, as this social divide exarcerbated in industrial model blast off(not for his solution to the problem).

3° The fundamental issues facing modern society is balance between long term and short term socioeconomic solutions, balance between oligarchy excellence and people's minimal needs to decent living and right to inalienable rights, and good management of the earths natural resources which are finite. All without war. Our technological prowess has made war a debilitating solution since gunpowder was invented and morphed into nuclear arsenal. And all with more ethical transparency. Its our collective future at stake not their sterile power plays! That's the true focus.

4° Now what does this Mises Shaman have to say about neo-hyper-Keynesian Shaman's rants?      As if its important ! Its hype to hide huge economic fraud of magnitude unsurpassed.                                               We don't need Shamans we need Hercules and cleaning out the Augean stables! And Hercules today is "we the people" pushing together.

Lets put the world back on its base and ensure Montesquieu has more say in nation-state/regional/world governance than Machiavelli's prince; whatever the Shamans may say! 

[ArmyofOne]

What's not a falacy is workers having more leverage to get more pay in there pockets. When unionization is strong the midle class blooms.  Thats the historical facts folks.  There is only one legal way workers can do this collectively.  Unions.  Union's work.

Give workers more rights to form unions and act collectively, much like the way compnaies work in large and small monopolies, and peer pricing schemes, workers can get more of the profits they make for there employers and Wall St. less.

We have a demand problem and it has grown in and out of wealth redistribution form labor to Wall St. 

[Roandavid]

If unions worked, American workers would not have abandoned them in droves.  Unions only benefit the lowest element of labor, the completely unacomplished and unmotived part of the labor force that is unable and unwilling to to provide value in exchange for their labor, think AFSCME or the AFT for example.

[rustymason]

Proles are people, too.

[Nue]

A guy I knew once worked in a Union print shop. They had to get a run out that afternoon and one of the giant printers was out of paper. Since it was a union shop he could not load the paper himself. He had to get the Paper-Handler to do it. He finds the guy sitting in the the breakroom on break. He couldn't wait for him so he loaded the paper himself. Causing him to get cursed out by the Union Rep and getting himself written up and almost fired  for "Stealing another mans work." That's what Union are today they are nothing but lazy inefficent bureaucracy's that don't work. Maybe if you went back 80-90 years you'd find Unions that were worth a damn but today? Forget about it.

[Stockmonger]

I agree with the premise that Krugman was expressing a Marxist POV--that businesses aren't entitled to the margin premium that they generate via sales and marketing success.  Also, Krugman and his sheep claim that Apple has a monopoly on phones, which is absurd.  

I didn't think this article did much with the premise.

[Professor Fate]

Sometimes, more can be learned from bad examples than can be learned from any other source.  Krugman sets the bar when it comes to bad examples.  The economy is stagnant because we didn't stimulate enough.  You can never stimulate enough for Krugman...ever.  The markets have been voting on Krugman's stimulus the last few days during the "Mini Bernanke Unwind". The "Bernank" now knows his fate when he is forced to stop buying and it should hasten his departure from the Fed.  Krugman is simply too ignorant to see the same thing and he will never depart from the socialist rag he works for.  We can, however, warm our spirits in knowing that future studies of the coming economic collapse will be littered with references to the idiot, Paul Robin Krugman, his influence on leading the lemmings over the cliff, and that ever popular source of parrot cage lining, The New York Times.

Fate the Magnificent

"Push the Button, Max"  

[Apostate2]

His propaganda is picked up in many newspapers, mine included. I went to the original, The NYT, and was gobsmacked by the synchopantic comments. True believers will not surrender until their pockets are picked and their children enslaved. Will this POS ever recant? No. That is the measure of his intellectual culpability and human failing. Hubris is a double-edged sword. Cuts both ways. Krugman has raised his arms in sacrifice to his delusion. 

[They trynna cat...]

If you want to feel suicidal, reading the NY Times comments is a sure fire way.

A wise man once said that those who fancy themselves 'intellectuals' are the biggest followers.

[They trynna cat...]

This is the best, most entertaining takedown of Marxism you will ever hear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnBQUJJ-7iE

[spanish inquisition]

Krugman has an out, a lame one, and it will go something like this ......

"The collapse of the economy and the dollar had nothing to do with Keynesianism. By my memory, my Nobel and all accounts, through its short history it has performed admirably. In the end, it was undone by criminal elements in the Corporations and Government who were siphoning off the money before it could reach the economy and perform the way that I had shown it would.

As we go forward with a new monetary system, we need to increase our effort and redouble our resolve. The debt must reach its intended endpoint. Therefore going forward, I have built in a new function of ecomonic modeling, a criminality vig with a cap of 3.74%, rather than the current 22.78%. The FED will print and the market will decide the rate, then 3.74% of the net will be taken off the top and given to criminal elements if, with a promise they will not steal from the Government. We will need at least a tripling of regulators for oversight and with my new modeling I should have a quadrupaling of accuracy."

[shovelhead]

Hard leftist political hackery disgused as economics. When the facts won't make the theory work, simply change the facts.

TIS's 2003 post clearly shows this to be the case with Krugman.

For thousands of years, workers have always possessed the means of owning production, but yet these companies are rare to non-existant in our modern world. Why?

Human nature. Only a relative few will forgo consumption today to amass capital to invest in ownership that will create a higher future value. Obviously, it is much easier for those who earn far more than they consume, but the principle applies equally to CEO and floorsweeper alike, capital is saving instead of spending.

Belief in a redistributive Santa that brings presents to all and sundry cannot alter this immutatable fact.

Human Action: It's what's for dinner. No permanent way around it.

Despite what Krugman or anyone else may say.

A humble POV from someone who obviously wouldn't stand much chance in the gladitorial arena of academic theory but has started a few businesses and still has LOTS of recipes for dried beans and rice.

[orangegeek]

Krugman has a PhD that he likes to brag about when someone disagrees with him.

Krugman is chock full of economic history and data and uses his wordsmithing skills to spin nonsense.

ZH shouldn't cover Krugman - he's just an overpaid media bullshitter - I read his crap once - never again.

[Forward History]

Krugman can't change gears because it would mean deep, uncomfortable self-reflection about his identity. Part of him desperately needs to know he has a clear handle on things (we all seek this in life); his outlook and worldview is built and shaped on the idea that he is an enlightened man advocating the dream of a government that would be benevolent and decent if only its troglodytic detractors would get out of the way.

Look at what he must do in order to acquiese to the evidence that Keynesianism is ineffective: he must renounce the value of his personal philosophies, his political leanings (or so he thinks -- classical liberalism actually has many positive attributes), his chosen President, his many lectures, his TV appearances, his Nobel, etc. He must take those and admit they were wrong, that he was advocating the wrong approach all along. He must start over, at square one.

Such a leap is more than most men could ever do. The alternative is to scream into the wind of fact, and double-down to the contrary of it. This is the approach he seems to be taking.

[Blazed]

Staying true to his particular tribal ways, how quaint.

[Herkimer Jerkimer]

'

'

'

'

Ya ever notice all the hard-core marxists and socialists, they're NEVER the ones in the great revolution, that are happy to be scrubbing the crappers out?

They're ALWAYS the ones givin' the orders to schlubs like us, to scrub'em out.

Hmm…

•?•
V-V

[ZH11]

This site has been full of stories in the last few years of money on the sidelines, excess capital, etc., and the damaging effect that has on GDP numbers, so why the hate at Krugman when he says exactly the same thing?

The pernicious comments about Krugman have become the article for the author above and he focuses on Marx and communism rather than Marx on capitalism where, despite the Austrians know-all attitude on economics, he proved that he knew more about capitalism than they did or will.

Also if we're quoting Marx today I would point that even Marx said he was no Marxist and;

"The other side of the coin is pressure on the society's available productive capital. Since elements of productive capital are constantly being withdrawn from the market and all that is put ino the market is an equivalent in money, the effective demand rises, without this in itself providing any element of supply. Hence prices rise, both for the means of subsistence and for the material elements of production. During this time too, there are regular business swindle, and great transfers of capital. A band of speculators, contractors, engineers, lawyers etc., enrich themselves:.

Which sounds a lot like now really!