This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Krugman Con

Sprott Money's picture




 

 

 

The Krugman Con

Written by Peter Diekmeyer (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

 

Gold’s biggest enemy is a brilliant Nobel Prize winning economist, university professor and columnist for the New York Times. Sadly, he is also a con man. 

Last week Paul Krugman wrote a column for the New York Times in which he called Republican Paul Ryan, a “con man.” The Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s sins, Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist and a professor at City University of New York, argues, stem from a lack of detail in his budget plans, regarding proposed spending cuts and closed tax loopholes. 

Calling a politician a con man is a bit like telling a pig farmer that he stinks. It’s practically part of the job description. 

The claim is particularly rich, coming from Krugman, who in recent years has emerged as the de facto leader of a group of mainstream economists, whose advocacy of near unlimited government spending, borrowing and, most recently, money printing, will go down as one of history’s greatest cons. 

Understanding how, what I call the “Krugman Con,” has been unfolding is crucial for precious metals advocates, because one of its core elements was the attempted elimination of the vital role played by gold. Indeed, the gold’s recent resurgence on the world stage is an indication that the con, is nearing its closing stages 

 

 

The Krugman Con - Peter Diekmeyer

 

 

Tax and spend. Borrow and spend. Print and spend.

Krugman’s sins, which relate to his advocacy of distortions of policies suggested by John Maynard Keynes, are arguably far worse than Ryan’s. As a university professor, Krugman has an obligation to be bound by a modicum of intellectual and academic rigor, rigor which is sadly absent in the advice he gives.

In his landmark work “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” Keynes recommended that governments, through their spending, ought to play a stabilizing role in the economy. That’s particularly true, wrote Keynes, during recessions, when governments should run deficits to increase demand, but also during good times, when they should run surpluses to pay down debts and cool things off. 

However over the years, “Keynesian” academics, as they have become known, led by Krugman, have advocated increased government spending all the time, for almost any justification. Governments of all stripes, - most recently the Abe administration in Japan, - eager for academic cover for policies that justified massive government spending now (to get them elected), followed by tightness later (preferably after they had left power), embraced Krugman, and his acolytes, with open arms. 

This process, - which is worth following, for those who want an understanding as to the increased importance of hard assets, - evolved in three stages. 

 

 

The 1960s and 1970s: Tax and spend 

Original Keynesian economics as described by Keynes in “The General Theory…” had some economic merit, if for no other reason than as an untried academic theory, particularly for a western world starving for solutions after the depression of the 1930s. However when put in practice the policies led to non-stop growth in government spending – and to a need, by politicians for academics to justify those spending increases.

However by the mid-to-late 1960s and early 1970s, “tax and spend” governments led by all parties, fattened by program such as Johnson’s “Great Society” had reached the limits on what the public was willing to pay in taxes. One important milestone was reached when a healthcare program proposed by US Republican president Richard Nixon, which was remarkably similar in many respects to Obamacare, was stopped dead in its tracks. 

 

 

The 1980s and 1990s: borrow and spend

Stymied by populations that were taxed to the limit, governments, like any interest group, searched in vain for ways to continue to fatten their paychecks and raise funds to distribute to their backers. The answer came almost by accident during the early 1980s when the Reagan administration, in a failed bid to reduce the size of government, led a massive series of tax cuts, without cutting spending, in fact it ended up increasing it. Governments the world over quickly figured out that they could sell or maintain almost any spending program to the public – as long as they did not raise taxes, but rather borrowed the money instead.

During the 1990s, the Clinton administration, under the guidance of his Deputy Treasury Secretary (and later Treasury Secretary) Larry Summers, and goaded on by Krugman and other Keynesians, brought a new twist to “borrow and spend” policies, by, for the lack of a better term “fudging the books.” 

The Clinton administration, which began running into limits as to how much the US government could borrow, began simply not recording its liabilities, particularly with respect to public pensions, and healthcare benefits promised to future generations. On paper the Clinton administration thus ran balanced budgets for many of the years it was in office. However in reality, the trillions of dollars in “unfunded liabilities,” that it incurred, dwarfed all of the previous administration’s deficits. 

 

 

The 2000s and 2010s: print and spend

Unable to raise taxes further, and tapped out by limits as to their ability to increase net borrowings, governments searched in vain for new solutions. Many give credit (or blame) to the then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who temporarily solved the problem by bringing interest rates down to near zero in real terms, following the dot.com implosion in the early 1990s. This enabled governments to finance even more debt.

However there is at least a theoretical case to be made that Greenspan, a hard money and gold advocate , had no choice. As Greenspan later explained: political realities had made the growth in the sloppy economic policies advocated by Krugman and others, increasingly unstoppable – even by a Fed chairman. 

Ben Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, likely spoke for many on the Federal Open Market Committee, when, in a landmark speech to the National Economists Club in Washington in 2002, he raised the possibility of governments raining money from helicopters on the economy. 

While “helicopter money,” was justifiably mocked, when Bernanke succeeded Greenspan as Fed chairman, he initiated the latest, and most innovative stage in the Krugman Con. To make up for the fact that people increasingly would not lend to governments, at the derisive interest rates they were paying, Bernanke suggested that governments finance their extra spending, by printing the extra money. 

He didn’t say it that way of course. Like all of the major steps in the Krugman Con, Bernanke’s money printing is known by a technical sounding term that the public doesn’t understand, in this case: “debt monetization.”

 

 

Krugman knows better 

It should be noted that when I refer to Krugman as a “Con Man,” I am not implying that he is doing anything illegal. Indeed his theories, notably his distortion of Keynesian economics, are followed by most of the mainstream economics profession, who, as the late Murray Rothbard, once noted, are dependent on advocacy of such policies for their jobs.

What makes Krugman a “con,” is the fact that he understands what has happened in places where policies similar those he is advocating were zealously implemented (Zimbabwe, pre-revolutionary France and Weimer Germany) and thus he knows better. It’s just that his salary, clients and speaking fees, depend on him saying the opposite. 

Don’t fault him though. The money is good. Next week Krugman will be speaking at an event here in Montreal . The ticket price is $200. That’s more than I paid to watch U2. 

Not bad for an economist. Or a con man. 


The views of the author do not necessarily reflect those of Sprott Money. 

 

 

Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

 

 

The Krugman Con

Written by Peter Diekmeyer (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)


 

Peter Diekmeyer is a freelance business/economics/defence/IR writer, with 15+ years of experience. Regular clients include the National Post, Canadian Defence Review, Grocery Business, and many financial sector blogs and economics sites.

Peter has also written speeches for dozens of the country's top CEOs, Ministers and NGO leaders. Other niche areas include financial/technology white papers and French to English translations.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 05:46 | 6729809 Rakksan
Rakksan's picture

Nice to see Blinky Krugman wearing eye glasses.

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 16:45 | 6729388 spqrusa
spqrusa's picture

Debt slavery works for the holders and benefactors of debt. This is why it persists.

You can disengage from their system when the men-with-guns stop coming after you for their phony fiat.

The "people" could be free tomorrow of "their" system just by chosing something better. It is better because it's out of "their" reach. Better because it respects no border other than the blockchain border. The chicoms have figured this out. XBT is their vehicle.

 

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 13:02 | 6726709 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Does Israel subcribe to Krugmanomics?

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 13:05 | 6726724 TalkToLind
TalkToLind's picture

They created it. :)  But don't tell anyone cause das rayciss.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 12:52 | 6726680 PanickyIdiot
PanickyIdiot's picture

But money printing has worked so well everywhere it has ever been tried.

1. Angola (1991-1999)
2. Argentina (1975-1991)
3. Belarus (1994-2002)
4. Bolivia (1984-1986)
5. Brazil (1986-1994)
6. Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993)
7. Bulgaria (1991-1997)
8. Ecuador (2000)
9. Georgia (1995)
10. Madagascar (2004)
11. Mexico (1994)
12. Nicaragua (1987-1990)
13. Peru (1984-1990)
14. Poland (1990-1993)
15. Romania (2000-2005)
16. Russia (1992-1994)
17. Turkey (1990’s)
18. Ukraine (1993-1995)
19. Yugoslavia (1989-1994)
20. Zaire (1989-1996)
21. Zimbabwe (1999 – 2009)

http://www.munknee.com/21-countries-have-experienced-hyperinflation-in-l...

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 12:48 | 6726663 TalkToLind
TalkToLind's picture

Krugman calling someone else a con man is like the pot and kettle on steroids.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 11:00 | 6726134 Schroedingers Cat
Schroedingers Cat's picture

Save the vitriol for men like Hank Paulson and Tim Geitner who deserve it.  Paul Krugman is a professor of economics.  His "crime" is not agreeing with Austrian economics which is a gigantic fable. Krugman never supported the bailouts and he has never supported the economic stimulus program the Fed is engaged in today.  Most people I know who work at the Fed do not support these low interest rates either.  Politics rules economic policy and almost everything the Fed and economists like Paul Krugman know to be right will never see the light of day.  Austerity has contracted the economy to the point that over half of Americans now 'unofficially' live below the poverty line.  The primary beneficiaries of stimulus are anyone who holds assets pumped up artificially by government.  Just enough benefit trickles down from this to keep the economy on life support.  Huge pockets of the economy are in starvation mode.  The government refuses to spend money in Detroit unless it's to save some NY Banks's loans.  The crowd is almost always wrong.  The crowd thinks government has spent too much and the truth is it has spent FAR too little where it should.  We really have far too little debt as we are due to enter another debt ceiling debaucle.  This isn't socialism or any other -ism you want to label it.  Austerity NEVER works.  You might as well deny Newton's laws or Darwinian evolution.  Austrian economics is right up there with Creation science.  Austerity is highly destructive and outright dangerous.  The government has been propping up bad banks and businesses for too long.  With the governments help. banks that should have been restructured have financialized just about everything and the idiots want us to pay for it with austerity.  If someone out there has a brain, it really sucks to be in a sea of people who think they're experts but aren't.  The absurdity of the situation is only matched by the tragedy of it.  The country has  been taught to fear the national debt and men who live in caves on the other side of the world.  I don't expect anyone to read a substantive book explaining why austerity is so dangerous.  Instead people read Peter Schiff or better yet, buy his book (and don't read it) yet believe they know something that is so self evident only a fool couldn't see it, like the Phlogiston theory of fire.

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 01:40 | 6729612 rockface
rockface's picture

Austrian Economics is the only rational economic theory but that does not mean if you absolutely devastate the economies of the world that you can call up an Austrian who will instantly restore goodness and prosperity with God-like power.  If you spend a hundred years crushing freedom and prosperity it may take an equal amount of time or more to clean up the destruction.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 11:45 | 6726373 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

Well written SC. But I can't upvote you because I really don't understand what your point is with my age induced and dull comprehension ability.

Austerity is indeed dangerous and history shows us that everytime you submit the majority or starve them- they rebel and kill their would be captors- with a few exceptions.That's why we have food stamps and the ACA.

Are you saying that government spends money on the wrong things? I can agree with that. Are you defending Krugman? Are you telling us that trillions upon trillions of debt is something to ignore?

Or are you simply writing schmutz on behalf of your ego?

Here's the deal. Write and make your point supported by facts and examples instead of calling people fools for well established and sound beliefs- or we might think you are a phlogiston whatever in the fuck that has to do with anything.

 

 

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 14:54 | 6727079 Schroedingers Cat
Schroedingers Cat's picture

Most of what people learn about economics comes from sound bites on TV or internet articles.  Some of it is good but it's almost always thin gruel at best.  It's a waste of everyones time.  Economics is complex beast but not so complicated people can't understand it, but it takes effort and time.  Who has time and effort to spare for that?  Not many people.  Here's the route I took to study econmics.  I had a big advantage having a strong background in real analysis, measure theory, ergodic theory and probability, having fought with the equations of string theory and high energy physics for the greater part of a decade I had the background needed to study economics on my own over the summer skipping directly to graduate courses.  I used the MIT Opencourseware site for guidance http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/     and had a friend with a PhD at the local university who appreciated my interest and gave me a few hours of his time in exchange for showing him how my trading system works (and sometimes doesn't work).   So I am not an economics expert but I gave the subject a sincere effort and sank about 100 hours or so into it. 

 

One of the things that surprised me most while learning economics is that government debt is not the same as personal debt.  Yes, we think of personal debt as being bad especially if we can't pay it back but government debt is a different story altogether.  Excessive indebtedness is very bad for both individuals and governments.  Underindebtedness is usually very good for individuals but the surprising thing is government underindebtedness IS (not might be, IS) toxic to an economy.  How can this be?  It goes against everything I ever believed?  (and yes, I am a former Libertarian or one who at least has modified his beliefs when faced with the evidence.)  The economy is a game, much more complicated than Chess, and all the seemingly counterintuitive feedback loops that form between all the participants smash all preconceived notions we may have had, confronting us with hard reality.  Here are some points stated very plainly.  It's not 'proof' because we don't have things like 'proof' in economics.  It's a hard science harder than psychology but certainly less hard than physics.

1.  Government debt is fundamentally different than personal debt.  It's money that we owe to ourselves.  China and Japan are huge creditors to the US but even then we owe ourselves most of the money.   The situation is entirely different from 3rd world countries becomming indebted to the IMF and losing sovereignty.  The US loses no sovereignty and is at no disadvantage for holding  debt which it owes to itself.  The debt held by the Federal Reserve is all money we owe to ourselves.  About 7T$ of the debt held by the Federal Reserve is entirely the result of a private market crisis.  It was not the result of an orgy of public spending.  The freaks in government and the industry lobbyists who control them now want the public to pay it all back through austerity.  This is very bad because...

2.  Government reducing it's debt is always deflationary and harmful unless it's done during those rare times of rapid economic growth e.g. post WWII in which growth offsets the deflation.  There are isolated instances of austerity being a success e.g. Scandinavian countries in '92 were always accompanied by a much larger neighboring economy during a period of strong growth.  Aside from very few exceptions, the reality is dismal, austerity drives economies into the ground.  Austerity works for your irresponsible brother-in-law who won't hold a job but it's a disaster when practiced by a country as fiscal policy. 

3.  The only thing that would get our country and the world out of it's present mess is financial repression.  This will certainly not happen any time soon.  The cronies who control everything most certainly do not want to the government to take on more debt on behalf of the public.  The only government debt they approve of is a bailout, for themselves.

 

I highly recommend Mark Blythe's book, "Austerity, History of a Dangerous Idea".  It's a popular book but still much more substantive than anything you'll read in the news or CNN etc. 

 

Since this is a boring topic (It really is, let's not kid ourselves...) It helps to have a little of that spirit of Gonzo journalism a la Rolling Stone.  Mark Blythe give an excellent talk in the link below complete with enough humor and foul language to make a banal topic as government spending, of such massive consequence to everybody but nobody wants to discuss EVER, actually tolerable, nay dare I say even entertaining to listen to. 

Also, none of our opinions really count and none of this will change anything.  We won't suddenly all wake up one day recognizing what a horrible idea austerity actually is but it is FUN,  Big bold capital F  oversized double fisted Johnny Cash middle finger waving FUN to expose Austerity for the complete Horse Shit pile of nonsense that it really is. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in5M65566iw

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 05:25 | 6729797 Anarchist Thinker
Anarchist Thinker's picture

I wouldn't want to disparage your 100 hours of economics education, but you learned some real bullshit and you lack the courage or the intellectual capacity to perform a deeper analysis. All your ranting can be easily dismissed because you used the term private market crisis.

There is no market crisis, or world economic crisis, like they say around the world. In economics, when someone loses, someone else has the opportunity to gain.

What we had was a banking crisis. Banks had lent to deadbeats and they were sitting on losses when said deadbeats couldn't pay up. Why did the banks do it? Because the more people they lend to in order to create competition and bidding wars, the more they increase prices overall and they get to saddle even well-paying pigeons with more debt. 

No problem, bankrupt the banks. But governments put a stop to that by starting the bail-outs. That is the beginning of the problem, not the losses on banks balance sheets. Now, what would have happened if there were no bailouts? Banks would have to sell their assets, such as mortgages on their books, at probably less then full-value. Other lenders would buy them cheaper. Who? Could be healthy banks, lending to the same people to buy back their own mortgage for half-price or less. So they would cancel their old nflated mortgage and would have the new smaller loan and more money in their pockets to support the economy. New workers, fresh out of college, would also find house prices affordable. Economy would roll along, but Blankfein, Dimon and their ilk would be sent to the poorhouse. That would have been a natural, free market solution, that your false gods interrupted. So educate yourself a bit more next time.

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 05:24 | 6729795 r00t61
r00t61's picture

So you got bamboozled by some tripe written by the accredited and credentialed Keynesian voodoo high priests?

How sad.

You are the textbook useful idiot that Lenin once spoke of so amusedly.

Face it - you are no different or better than the cranks who were paraded on stage to glorify "Soviet Science" - a "hard science" which predicted the death of the west and the ultimate domination of the hammer and sickle.

 

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 05:35 | 6729802 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

he is fully right on one count, though, even if I do not agree with his explanation: government debt is a completely different beast then personal debt

any attempt to explain to the man on the street government debt by making comparisons to personal debt is in fact an attempt to bamboozle him

and the reason ought to be obvious: individuals die, sovereigns and governments die, too, but not so easily, and it's way more difficult to forecast it

example: British sovereign debt has not been defaulted upon since 800 years (only inflated away since it's not gold-backed anymore)

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 07:23 | 6729941 Herodotus
Herodotus's picture

You think that "only inflated away" is not default?

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 01:38 | 6729601 Womb Service
Womb Service's picture

You've been completely brainwashed.

Why would a sovereign nation pay perpetual interest on an unrepayable structural (imaginary) debt that is rolled over? Nothing was actually borrowed. The whole thing is fiction. The "interest" for the privilege of using somebody's system of private credit is really just a vig. Our debt based currency system is just a gigantic skimming machine. The fruits of your labor taken from you...endlessly. Why don't we have a free market for money? Cui Bono?

Modern economics is about obfuscation. You fell for it. 

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 11:19 | 6726247 taopraxis
taopraxis's picture

Austrian economics recognizes one thing that mainstream economics does not, i.e., economics is not a hard science. You load up on sovereign debt with a negative yield in order to secure your financial future and I'll buy gold...let's see who wins.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 11:23 | 6726262 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 for the fellow Austrian and his "economics is not a hard science"

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 10:37 | 6725989 To Hell In A Ha...
To Hell In A Handbasket's picture

Who the fuck takes Krugman seriously? lol

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 11:06 | 6726173 Schroedingers Cat
Schroedingers Cat's picture

Smart people, people who really understand economics.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 14:46 | 6727111 Schroedingers Cat
Schroedingers Cat's picture

Based on your voting about 20% of you really understand economics.  I WILL CURE YOU.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 15:42 | 6727354 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

This should be good.

 

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 13:40 | 6731587 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

Lets start by defining a few things first.

 Define stable,value,inflation,theft,fruad, and force as a starting point. Im sure we will need more correctly defined as we dig deeper.

 Ya think all this economics is complicated? Try being married to a Redhead.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 12:47 | 6726660 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

I love your ID.

I have decided to expand it to cover other areas where it might apply:

 

Shroedingers Gold (wrt GLD)

Shroedingers String

Shroedingers Reserve (wrt to banks)

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 12:18 | 6726522 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

LOL - yeah, people with NO FUCKING COMMON SENSE!

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 11:03 | 6726155 Lesbian Schoolgirls
Lesbian Schoolgirls's picture

Canada's new PM, Justin Trudeau, for one. His economic "plan" is more or less based entirely on one of Krugman's op-eds.

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 01:43 | 6729619 rockface
rockface's picture

If you went down to the corner store wearing a mask and waving a gun you would be basing your economy on Krugman's op-eds.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 10:33 | 6725982 Niall Of The Ni...
Niall Of The Nine Hostages's picture

In a better ordered world, Paul Krugman, who became an economist because the work economists did sounded like something from an Asimov novel, would still be living with his mother and would have no audience for his rants but luckless children who came into the comic shop that kept his body and soul together, looking for the latest issue of Archie.

As a Jew of Belarusian extraction, a better adjusted Krugman who was serious about making the world a better place would have been better off making aliyah, putting on an IDF uniform and helping defend the Jewish people from their enemies.

He might even have learned something from Israel's hyperinflation experience about how bad an idea printing money and spending it actually is---and that it's no substitute for free-market reform.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 13:16 | 6726783 Johnny Horscaulk
Johnny Horscaulk's picture

Who are their enemies?

The people they ethnically cleansed, now colonize, whose homes and crops they routinely destroy, and whom they periodically mass murder?

Those people?

The IDF isn't about "defense" at all.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 09:09 | 6725621 Okienomics
Okienomics's picture

I'm not sure I agree with the author and comments that Krugman "knows better."   My sense is that he, like most sufferers of The Liberal Disease, believe they are inherently superior human beings who know best what's good for everyone.  They seek to force their solutions on society and simultaneously outlaw declining to participate and criminalizing the means to resist.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 08:37 | 6725486 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

 These cats all know better. Its called riding the gravy train.

 You know whats really sick about it? They actually think people like me are just to stupid to get on board. As if we did not know lying thieving and cheating paid well. Fame and fortune and all that. If you just sell out. Embrace the suck. Turn to the darkside.

 

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 08:26 | 6725443 taopraxis
taopraxis's picture

I posted these remarks on that central bank toady's blog this morning. Surprisingly, I am quite unpopular there.

Among various invidious notions I see on these threads is the notion that middle class people do not have savings and are therefore not harmed by the zero returns on those savings. This is just not true...
SS income, only? Good luck, if you're in the NYC vicinity.
Pensions are hard to come by these days for anyone who does not work for the government. One simply must have savings in order to be able retire.
When I bought my home in 1984, SS would have covered my monthly property taxes and insurance with half left over. Now, those two expenses together eat *all* of it, with property tax taking 90% share for the same house. Without savings, I'd be forced out.
Note, by the way, that having savings does not make you rich. Sure, if you have millions, but suppose you had just enough to, say, double your SS income with income from savings. ZIRP made that go away.
Solution? Spend down your savings unless you want to risk it in the stock market, where you could quite easily lose 40% in one year. Note, by the way, that stocks have produced no significant gains over the past year, either.
And, that my friends, is how I know the clock is ticking and that time is running out for the system of extraction. One by one, retirees are burning through their assets and being forced to retrench, liquidate their homes and reduce their standards of living. Meanwhile, the economy languishes and the rich laugh all the way to the bank as their bond portfolios ramp to new highs on the free money.

Fri, 10/30/2015 - 01:47 | 6729623 rockface
rockface's picture

Most people may be highly educated, qualified, successful, and experienced in their field of endeavor but when it comes to the investing they are more dangerous than a five year old with a loaded submachine gun.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 08:52 | 6725556 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

I've really have enjoyed your posts these last few weeks. 

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 08:13 | 6725401 safe as milk
safe as milk's picture

fyi, bernanke didn't come up with the "helicopter money." he was quoting milton friedman.

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 07:45 | 6725345 strangeglove
strangeglove's picture

I'm flushing a large Krugman right now!

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 09:09 | 6725619 messymerry
messymerry's picture

...and wiping my Obama.

;-D    

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 10:00 | 6725851 Fukushima Fricassee
Fukushima Fricassee's picture

He's wiping Reggie's

Thu, 10/29/2015 - 09:53 | 6725796 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

When I saw right in the beginning that you started the piece by calling him "Brilliant" I could not help but think of this as a sarcastic comedy piece... for surely, brilliant and Krugman in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Oxy being the word brilliant, and Krugman being the moron...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!