Guest Post: Paul Krugman's Fallacies

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum of Acting-Man blog,

Krugman, Summers and the First Keynesian

Paul Krugman has used the occasion of Larry Summers' speech at the IMF to lay out his economic views, or let us rather say, his economic fallacies. As we already mentioned, the fact that Krugman liked Summers' speech proves ipso facto that it was a bunch of arrant nonsense. Krugman has subsequently proved us right beyond a shadow of doubt. A great many long refuted Keynesian shibboleths keep being resurrected in Krugman's fantasy-land, where economic laws are magically suspended, virtue becomes vice and bubbles and the expropriation of savers the best ways to grow the economy. It is important to keep in mind in this context that most of what Keynes wrote in the General Theory wasn't original – it was mainly a rehashing of the underconsumption and inflationist fallacies propagated by his less famous predecessors. As Henry Hazlitt remarked in his detailed refutation of Keynes (“The Failure of the New Economics”):

“I have analyzed Keynes's General Theory in the following pages theorem by theorem, chapter by chapter, and sometimes even sentence by sentence, to what to some readers may appear a tedious length, and I have been unable to find in it a single important doctrine that is both true and original. What is original in the book is not true; and what is true is not original. In fact, as we shall find, even much that is fallacious in the book is not original, but can be found in a score of previous writers.”

If one looks back at the history of economic thought, the earliest proponent of what we know as Keynesian errors today was probably John Law, the infamous Scotsman who almost single-handedly managed to ruin the economy of France (in fact, all of Europe was thrown into a depression lasting decades as a result of Law's monetary experiment). He was convinced that what the economy lacked was 'spending' and so endeavored to provide it with the necessary means – in spades. The result was a giant asset bubble and crack-up boom that left the economy in utter ruins when it ended.

Although Law's scheme involved speculation in the shares of what turned out to be a company that was worth much less than advertised, at the heart of the operation was a monetary scheme based on his previously developed theories. The plan involved the printing of oodles of unbacked paper money which Law thought would spur a revival of France's moribund economy and concurrently fix the government's tattered finances. As is almost always the case with inflationary schemes, it appeared to work initially. In fact, it seemed to work almost too well (if Tonto had been around, he would have noticed that something was wrong). The world's first 'millionaires' were created, for a brief time at least (most of them ended up as paupers, similar to Law himself).

The problem with all such schemes is essentially that scarce resources end up being invested unwisely, as inflation makes it appear as though they were more plentiful than they really are. Once the inevitable collapse comes, these unwise investments are unmasked and it become obvious to all that capital has been squandered.



John Law – the world's first Keynesian

(Image via Wikimedia Commons)



John Law 50 Livres Tournois_500x345

One of the ultimately worthless paper promises issued by Law's Banque Générale

(Image via Wikimedia Commons)



The 'Logic' of Nonsense

What we noted above regarding 'wise' and 'unwise' investment is an important point to keep in mind when considering Krugman's rehashing of Keynesian fallacies. Krugman writes:

“Larry’s formulation of our current economic situation is the same as my own. Although he doesn’t use the words “liquidity trap”, he works from the understanding that we are an economy in which monetary policy is de facto constrained by the zero lower bound (even if you think central banks could be doing more), and that this corresponds to a situation in which the “natural” rate of interest – the rate at which desired savings and desired investment would be equal at full employment – is negative.


And as he also notes, in this situation the normal rules of economic policy don’t apply. As I like to put it, virtue becomes vice and prudence becomes folly. Saving hurts the economy – it even hurts investment, thanks to the paradox of thrift. Fixating on debt and deficits deepens the depression. And so on down the line.”

(emphasis added)

We already discussed that the idea that the natural interest rate can become negative is a fallacy (see “Meet Larry Summers, Social Engineer” for more color on this). To briefly summarize, for the natural rate to go negative, time preferences would have to go negative too, as interest rates are merely the ratio between present and future goods. However, a situation in which human beings value attaining the same satisfaction in a more remote future more highly than attaining it in a nearer future is simply unthinkable (capitalistic saving, i.e., abstaining from present consumption, always aims at obtaining more goods and/or services in the future).

All this 'liquidity trap' and 'paradox of thrift' stuff makes no sense whatsoever. Savings are not 'lost' to the economy, they are the sine qua non without which capital accumulation and production are not possible. Virtue doesn't become vice in an economic downturn and economic laws don't change. As William Anderson points out in a recent article, the problem with this thinking is that it ignores capital theory. Attempts to revive the economy with deficit spending and inflation will never stimulate all factors of production simultaneously and to the same extent. The moment one considers the heterogeneity of capital it becomes clear that such interventions must lead to distortions which result in the boom-bust cycle (the housing bubble that expired in 2007/8 provides us with an excellent recent example for this).

Krugman elaborates further, once again invoking space aliens in the process:

“This is the kind of environment in which Keynes’s hypothetical policy of burying currency in coalmines and letting the private sector dig it up – or my version, which involves faking a threat from nonexistent space aliens – becomes a good thing; spending is good, and while productive spending is best, unproductive spending is still better than nothing.”

It is simply incorrect that 'unproductive spending is better than nothing'. Recall what we said above about 'wise and unwise investment'. Deploying scarce resources in unproductive fashion is not 'better than nothing', it will simply consume capital and destroy wealth. Krugman continues along these lines, seemingly eager to enlist everyone in his plan to waste as much capital as possible:

“Larry also indirectly states an important corollary: this isn’t just true of public spending. Private spending that is wholly or partially wasteful is also a good thing, unless it somehow stores up trouble for the future. That last bit is an important qualification. But suppose that U.S. corporations, which are currently sitting on a huge hoard of cash, were somehow to become convinced that it would be a great idea to fit out all their employees as cyborgs, with Google Glass and smart wristwatches everywhere. And suppose that three years later they realized that there wasn’t really much payoff to all that spending. Nonetheless, the resulting investment boom would have given us several years of much higher employment, with no real waste, since the resources employed would otherwise have been idle.


OK, this is still mostly standard, although a lot of people hate, just hate, this kind of logic – they want economics to be a morality play, and they don’t care how many people have to suffer in the process.”

(emphasis added)

So 'wasteful spending is a good thing unless it stores up trouble for the future' – Krugman says that this is an 'important qualification', only to proceed to show us in the next breath that he actually does not feel constrained by any such 'qualification' at all. Presumably he put that filler sentence in there so that when people in the future take a look at what he recommended in the past, he can claim to have 'qualified' his demand for wasteful spending (recall his vocal demand for a housing bubble before housing bubbles turned out to be uncool, which continues to cause him well-deserved embarrassment). When the latest scheme to 'rescue' the economy by inflation and deficit spending fails, he will be able to dig up this 'important qualification' (as if there could be any wasteful spending that doesn't store up trouble for the future).

The idea that 'idle resources' need to be pressed into service is also due to Krugman having no inkling of capital theory. In the Keynesian view of the world, capital is a self-replicating homogeneous blob, some portions of which are currently accidentally 'idled' and only need to be prodded back into action with the help of  government spending. This is not so. Capital is not only heterogeneous, much of it is highly specific and inconvertible. What appears to be unnecessarily 'idle' are simply the remnants of previous malinvestments. It may no longer make economic sense to employ the capital concerned. Workers who used to be employed in lines of production the products of which are no longer in demand may be holding out, hoping for the sector to 'come back' rather than accepting a lower wage in a different occupation.

As an example, consider the housing sector that was at the center of the previous boom. If building companies have invested in enough machinery to erect two million houses per year, but I has turned out that there is only demand for 400,000 houses, it wouldn't make sense to employ the superfluous machinery and construct two million houses per year anyway. People that were employed in construction may need to retrain or move and be willing to accept less remunerative work. It is certain that e.g. far fewer roofers are needed today than during the building boom. Renewed credit expansion is likely to affect different sectors of the economy, but if it leads to another artificial boom in the same sector, it will merely prolong the life of malinvested capital and delay the necessary adjustments. Krugman argues along Keynesian lines that  'stuff the government has dropped into coal mines should be dug up', but neglects that this activity doesn't come without costs (or rather, erroneously argues that the costs don't matter).

Krugman avers that this 'logic' is hated because people are informed by a warped sense of morality. The problem has nothing to do with morals though, the problem is that there is simply no 'logic' discernible. Krugman offers the most illogical ideas and then proceeds to call them 'logic' as if that could somehow dignify them and mitigate the fact that they are offending common sense.


More Bubbles Please

Believe it or not, it gets still more absurd. Not only does Krugman conclude that it is supposedly advisable to engage in unproductive spending because it is 'better than nothing', he also believes that Summers' speech contains an unspoken demand for more bubbles. And why not? After all, he has already concluded that 'prudence is folly', so why not throw prudence overboard, lock, stock and barrel? Never mind that this is what policy makers are already doing, so there hardly seems a great need to egg them on. According to Krugman:

“We now know that the economic expansion of 2003-2007 was driven by a bubble. You can say the same about the latter part of the 90s expansion; and you can in fact say the same about the later years of the Reagan expansion, which was driven at that point by runaway thrift institutions and a large bubble in commercial real estate.


So you might be tempted to say that monetary policy has consistently been too loose. After all, haven’t low interest rates been encouraging repeated bubbles? But as Larry emphasizes, there’s a big problem with the claim that monetary policy has been too loose: where’s the inflation? Where has the overheated economy been visible?


So how can you reconcile repeated bubbles with an economy showing no sign of inflationary pressures? Summers’ answer is that we may be an economy that needs bubbles just to achieve something near full employment – that in the absence of bubbles the economy has a negative natural rate of interest.”

(emphasis added)

The seemingly insoluble questions Krugman grapples with are not as difficult as he makes them out to be. The problem is that what he calls 'inflation' is only one of its many possible effects. Where the effects of inflation on prices first appear is a matter of the specific historical circumstances. Given strongly rising economic productivity, a huge expansion in international trade (and let us not forget, the transformation of the former communist command economies into market economies), it should be no great surprise that the effects of the huge credit expansion and money supply inflation of recent decades showed up in asset prices rather than consumer prices (incidentally, a very similar thing happened during the boom of he 1920s, during which economists also ignored a major credit and money supply expansion because consumer prices were tame due to strong increases in productivity).

This does not mean that other negative effects of these inflationary credit bubbles didn't put in an appearance. They all caused a distortion of relative prices and were thus all marked by massive capital malinvestment. Successive credit expansions led temporarily to higher employment even as capital was misallocted, but a steadily worsening underlying structural situation has become evident as these booms have inevitably turned into busts. So what solution does Krugman have to offer? He evidently thinks coercion and theft are the best way forward:

“Of course, the underlying problem in all of this is simply that real interest rates are too high. But, you say, they’re negative – zero nominal rates minus at least some expected inflation. To which the answer is, so? If the market wants a strongly negative real interest rate, we’ll have persistent problems until we find a way to deliver such a rate.


One way to get there would be to reconstruct our whole monetary system – say, eliminate paper money and pay negative interest rates on deposits. Another way would be to take advantage of the next boom – whether it’s a bubble or driven by expansionary fiscal policy – to push inflation substantially higher, and keep it there. Or maybe, possibly, we could go the Krugman 1998/Abe 2013 route of pushing up inflation through the sheer power of self-fulfilling expectations.”

(emphasis added)

Or putting it differently: do what John Law did and destroy what's left of the economy. The elimination of paper money (i.e., cash), would force people  (whether they like it or not) to keep their money in what are essentially insolvent fractionally reserved banks that have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they cannot be trusted. This poses no problem for Krugman, because it would make it easier to steal people's savings via the imposition of 'negative interest rates' (i.e., a regular penalty to be deducted from their hard earned money).

Krugman then expresses his advance surprise at why anyone would be outraged by this combination of abject economic nonsense and outright theft. After all, it would amount to nothing but the good old 'euthanasia of the rentier' once recommended by Keynes:

Any such suggestions are, of course, met with outrage. How dare anyone suggest that virtuous individuals, people who are prudent and save for the future, face expropriation? How can you suggest steadily eroding their savings either through inflation or through negative interest rates? It’s tyranny!


But in a liquidity trap saving may be a personal virtue, but it’s a social vice. And in an economy facing secular stagnation, this isn’t just a temporary state of affairs, it’s the norm. Assuring people that they can get a positive rate of return on safe assets means promising them something the market doesn’t want to deliver – it’s like farm price supports, except for rentiers.

(emphasis added)

What Krugman proposes here is indeed tyranny. The 'liquidity trap' is a figment of the Keynesian imagination anyway – no such thing exists. A positive rate of return on savings doesn't need to be 'promised' by anyone, it would be the natural state of affairs in a free market economy. Krugman then jumps to yet another conclusion, namely that in light of the above, the size and growth rate of the public debt would of course no longer matter at all:

“Oh, and one last point. If we’re going to have persistently negative real interest rates along with at least somewhat positive overall economic growth, the panic over public debt looks even more foolish than people like me have been saying: servicing the debt in the sense of stabilizing the ratio of debt to GDP has no cost, in fact negative cost.


I could go on, but by now I hope you’ve gotten the point.”

(emphasis added)

Well, we can at least be grateful that he didn't 'go on'.



Federal Debt

Too much debt? No problem, just impose negative interest rates! – click to enlarge.



Summary and Conclusion:

According to Paul Krugman, saving is evil and savers should therefore be forcibly deprived of positive interest returns. This echoes the 'euthanasia of the rentier' demanded by Keynes, who is the most prominent source of the erroneous underconsumption theory Krugman is propagating. Similar to John Law and scores of inflationists since then, he believes that economic growth is driven by 'spending' and consumption. This is putting the cart before the horse. We don't deny that inflation and deficit spending can create a temporary illusory sense of prosperity by diverting scarce resources from wealth-generating toward wealth-consuming activities. It should however be obvious that this can only lead to severe long term economic problems.

In fact, the last credit boom, in which policy makers fully implemented what Krugman and other Keynesians proposed, has done enormous structural damage. Not even the biggest spending spree and money supply expansion of the entire post WW2 era has been able to divert enough wealth into bubble activities to create a full-blown pseudo-'recovery' so far. Krugman's conclusion seems to be that more of the same is needed. In other words, we are supposed to repeat what clearly hasn't worked before, only on a much greater scale.

Finally it should be pointed out that the idea that economic laws are somehow 'different' in periods of economic contraction is a cop-out mainly designed to prevent people from asking an obvious question: if deficit spending and inflation are so great, why not always pursue them?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Prairie Dog's picture

Zerohedge - where the smartest people come!

TruthInSunshine's picture

Go back to licking Krugman's balls in his comment section of his NYT blog, where any person who dares to not only disagree with the High Priest of Economic Autism, but refuses to slobber on his knob, is barred from further debate...

...just as Mao or Stalin liked it.

game theory's picture

Holy hell...articles like this one actually make Krugman look smart which is part of the problem. If your gov't friends or college teacher friends or appl/fb/twtr friends aren't buying you dinner or a beer or gold coins or a lap dance at the strip clup, you should ditch those "friends". The US is getting negative real rates for a very long time as the people that hold the dollars right now lack any kind of real intellectual capacity. Krugman knows the words...but not the meaning. He can' he's never been in the private sector. Smart guys like him are so scary because they command so much mindshare in the world with no check or balance on the flaws in their thinking.  Anyway...enjoy the next decade of decline and hardship as people with plenty of dollars try to fight about how to run an economy with jawboning and nonsense. 

ZH Snob's picture

mr krugman is nothing more than a makeup artist, and his job is to constantly re-apply lipstick to a bloated and sickly economic pig.

ATM's picture

Krugman is much more. I would call him a commie hypnotist. He is where he is to keep beating the drum to get people to push for their own demise.

Krugman isn't dumb. He isn't misinformed. He is on a mission and that mission has nothing to do with economics. It has everything to do with politics. He is a political creation. 

Stuck on Zero's picture

Krugman is one of many opportunists who make a living telling the world that bad is good.  Similar Authors write books entitled: "Obesity is Good For You," "The Sugar and Fat Diet for Great Health," "Borrow Your Way to Riches,", "The No Work Way to Wealth," "Drinking Your Way to the Top," "Abusing Your Employees will Make them Love You," etc.  These Authors will be very popular with crooks, fatties, the vain and pompous, and of course to the government.  It's Krugman's business model.


Winston Smith 2009's picture

"Krugman is one of many opportunists who make a living telling the world that bad is good."

The garbage that is Keynesianism, specifically the neo-classical variety, persist because it tells both banks and governments what they want to hear - you can borrow your way to prosperity. Simple as that. Until the incestuous relationship between banks and governments ends, which will be never, that garbage will be the officially accepted dogma.

Stuck on Zero's picture

You can add John Naisbitt to the list of Authors who pander to the lunatic fringe.


Enough Already's picture

Yeah, I just gave up my latest $15/month digital subscription to the It was pointless. If you disagree with Krugman your comment is never posted. 

SAT 800's picture

Starving these apparatchiks of the Federal Fascist State is a significant political act; and a moral duty for everyone who sees what they are; cut off their money.

ATM's picture

But they own the printing press.

SAT 800's picture

And by all means remember who provides the platform for this fool to propagandize the public; The New York Times. An agent of the Devil. or of the Federal Government; which is the same thing. Remember this well; they put the mark on their own forehead by giving this maniac space in the public eye for his drooling madness.

ImReady's picture

If you apply Krugmans beliefs to any individuals personal financial life they fail. It really is that simple. Then again, I didn't go to MIT or Yale so WTF do I know.

Prairie Dog's picture

Yes that's right - you know nothing!


flacon's picture

If you apply Krugmans beliefs to any individuals personal financial life 


That's why Keynes created TWO economic paradigms: Micro economics (ie "any individuals personal financial life") and Macro economics (national economics). That way he can say that just because it would fail if an individual was to do it, it succeeds when nations do it. What a slime-ball he was. 




Bioscale's picture

It's the ancient tactic: divide & conquer.

kralizec's picture

This butthead and his ilk will be dealt with appropriately in due course.

Keyser's picture

Keel Hauling? Seems fitting. 


ATM's picture

Too tame. Drawn and quartered seems much more fitting since that was the punishment for treason, and Krugman is a treasonous bastard.

FrankDrakman's picture

The distinction is not arbitrary. The basic assumptions of micro - e.g. that sellers and consumers are price takers - don't apply at the government (macro) level, where the gov can and does dictate market size, prices, etc. Of course things will be different. Government also has policy tools (guns) that allow them to conscript labour, confiscate assets, and tax income - options not available to your local grocer (thank God, 'cause he doesn't like me.)

dick cheneys ghost's picture

cheney said that reagan proved that deficits dont somebody's fucking lying...........the red team or the blue team?


ElvisDog's picture

What Cheney said was that deficits don't matter politically, and he was right. In 2000-2008 deficits, which seemed high at the time, did not swing elections one way or the other.

StychoKiller's picture

Third alternative:  THEY'RE BOTH LYING!

WhyDoesItHurtWhen iPee's picture

If you like your Keynesian shibboleths, you can keep your Keynesian shibboleths.

lailapa's picture

The end of the world is near

The ten plagues of Pharaoh “have been brought upon” the USA.


Are the Germans “returning”? Or is something else going on?

Authored by Panagiotis Traianou

acetinker's picture

How 'bout you get Mr. Panos to do an abridged video version of this?  I like to read, but this thing got circular in the first dozen paragraphs.  Brevity lallapa, brevity!

Keyser's picture

The Germans only changed their Fuhrer.

PC Load Letter's picture

Krugman is a fuck nut

nmewn's picture

Mr.Krugman, I say again.

If spending & debt is more important to society than saving & thrift, you should have no problem in showing us your bank accounts & "assets".

Yes, that was me you never answered ;-)


Hedgetard55's picture



     Dr. K is well compensated to spout his nonsense, he is merely another worker bee in the bankster/progressive hive. His tongue should be nailed to a board.

Kantbelieveit's picture

Man's history has  been marked by many discoveries that are contrary to intuition and common sense. Keynesian stimulus was such a discovery. Even after reflationary economics had been proven to be successful by the New Deal and wartime spending, there are still idiots who equate a national economy with a household's finances and refuse to acknowledge multiplier effects. What is the alternative to stimulus? A grinding depression that inflicts misery on everyone but the rich for decades? Austerity has been a disaster in Europe, which is actually doing worse than the 1930s. If the US had followed the European path, as recommended by the austerity troglodytes on ZH, we would have worse unemployment and negative growth.

nmewn's picture

"...there are still idiots who equate a national economy with a household's finances and refuse to acknowledge multiplier effects."

We have already acknowledged the multiplier effect of involuntary servitude...quite frequently.

CURWAR2012's picture

You support the STATE over individual freedom... Do you in fact have someone still changing your diaper?

acetinker's picture

You ain't from around here, are ya'?  You actually think that endless debt is the A-Train to prosperity?  C'mon down to street level, Kant.  There's people here who can show you the way forward.  There's also people here who'll slit your gut for ten dollars.  Scary for ya', ain't it?

yofish's picture

Hoooo! I'm terrified, ace. I'm certain the OP is too.

NidStyles's picture

"Oh you will be, you will be..." ~Yoda.


What in the hell did you think Star Wars was about hero? It was about the collapse of Empire. He was referring to the US.

Keyser's picture

As Empires have risen and fallen throughout history with the same consistency as the sun rising in the east. One would think that TPTB would be intelligent enough to learn from history, but alas, it appears that we are not yet removed from swinging in the trees long enough to learn from prior mistakes. 


ATM's picture

I disagree. TPTB merely work where in time they happen to fall on the rise and fall timeline. 

We are approaching a fall so the TPTB simply profit fromthe  doom and prepare for the next big thing. Theres money to be made all along that timeline and power to be grabbed and maintained. I could argue that more power and money are made duringthe fall than during the rise.

Diogenes's picture

"What is the alternative to stimulus?"

How about a real economy with genuine business going forward, employing people to produce goods and services people need? How about an honest money system and honest efficient law enforcement that allows an honest person to make a profit and keep most of it,  and puts a stop to fraud, graft and theft?

Zadig's picture

How about an honest money system and honest efficient law enforcement that allows an honest person to make a profit and keep most of it,  and puts a stop to fraud, graft and theft?


+1.  Unfortunately it's anathema to our rulers so they'll try to fix things by increasing the amount of corruption and looting.

NidStyles's picture

Except the majority of the New Deal never made it into law as the Supremes kicked it in the teeth and invalidated the whole thing, along with FDR's infamous 100% taxation ideas...


The damage that was done by the government work programs prolonged the recession from the initial bail-outs into a depression that lasted until after World War 2.


The 'stimulus/mass intervention' caused the depression in the 1930's. When the government finally started pulling out of controlling everything the economy recovered. Europe is a fucking mess, and the poverty is increasingly grinding there.


besnook's picture

first of all keynesian theory assumed there was a restraint on the printing press(gold) so he did not advocate, at all, what is happening today. in fact, he predicated his ideas about stimulus spending upon a fiscally responsible .gov. show me one(there are actually a few...for the time being). so what is called keynesian today is not.

secondly, in a real economy, where a reduction in .gov spending means, at least, an equal increase in private spending is what austerity was sold as. iceland came closest to getting it right. if the rest of world was not so intent on plundering the nation you might have seen a real case study of a true austerity plan. iceland, as you know, was the first to recover from this mess. instead, austerity in europe with the exception of a few east european countries was austerity for the people and more debt for .gov, the exact opposite of an austerity plan that may have worked.

unfortunately the world economy is so misallocated that a severe depression may be the ultimate cure for all the malinvestment and probably will be on a "whether you like it or not" basis.

the current regime that quackman advocates is the ideal system for .1%ers. real assets flow into their pockets and there is no inflation except in the assets they own. they are slso better equiped to get out safely when the bubble bursts to go into the next bubble asset. fucking brilliant, if you ask me. you gotta play the game you are given. the mob loves it.

what i get a kick out of in all this "we have to have inflation talk" is the easiest way to achieve inflation is monthly check from .gov for however long it takes to flood the real economy with cash to be spent where the receipient of the cash sees fit possibly with a reward system for spending all of it on crap instead of assets. that sounds like something quackman would come up with. why doesn't he?

NidStyles's picture

Keynes was told several times that his work would be abused, he kept on advocating it, so fuck Keynes for selling the world down the river to Psychopaths.

Clowns on Acid's picture

Feckin' Idjit. You know absolutly feckin' nothin' you pos. You know nothing about the general price level, about how the left wing afcsist Fed and Fed Gov't policies lead to buubles and crashes.

You jump in half way thru an argument and say that we must continue to make things even worse. You stupid feck.


yofish's picture

Acid, yep. Clown, yep. You made a right-on avatar.

Wyatt Junker's picture

Hey Kunt,

How did war spending 'get us out of the depression'?  It only made life harder.  Guys slopping around in shit up to their knees getting shot at and women back at home slaving away making more bombs.  Yeah, sounds like prosperity to me. 

What actually got us out of depression was when that horseshit finally ended.


Meanwhile, the private sector is being carved out to support that rot and abuse like a Saw victim in a basement.