This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Letter To George Washington, Regarding Paul Krugman
By Gonzalo Lira
Letter To George Washington, Regarding Paul Krugman
I wrote a letter to George Washington, the pseudonym for a well-known finance and economics blogger, with regards to a blog post he wrote on August 15.
The letter might sound a bit like score-settling—but there is a serious point to it, a point that applies to both the Left and the Right. So be patient.
Here is my letter to him in full, with a few light editorial touch-ups:
Hi GW,
It’s been so long!
I’ve been skiing like a madman down here in Chile—but I did catch something you wrote, which I’d like to comment on, now that a blizzard has hit the slopes and I’m stuck inside with not much to do.
 |
| Paul Krugman |
You wrote a post yesterday, picked up by Zero Hedge and others, pointing out that Paul Krugman is advocating war as a fiscal stimulus solution.
You pointed out that this position he holds is not only blatantly immoral, it is a position Krugman seems to have no problem openly pushing—your unspoken implication being that this is disastrous, considering how influential Krugman is in major policy circles.
With regards to K. pushing for war as the ultimate Keynesian economic solution: I hate to say “I told you so”—but in this case—
I told you so!
(Cheers, mate.)
I pointed out the exact same thing almost a year ago: That once you strip away all the B.S., it turns out that Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, Keynesian par excellence and darling of the Wonk Left, is essentially pushing for war as the ultimate Keynesian stimulus solution.
For pointing this out, I got slimed by the Krugman Defense Industry (KDI).
My original post, pointing out that Krugman advocates war as the fiscal stimulus and solution, was called Why I Despise Krugman. I posted it on September 28, 2010.
And the response—i.e., the sliming—by the KDI was pretty severe and swift, considering that at the time, I was a lowly blogger with not much of a following:
• The sliming by Andrew Leonard at Salon: The Dumbest Attack on Krugman—Ever
• The sliming by Brad DeLong, Krugman's main flunky: Something Totally Batshit Insane Shows Up on Henry Blodget's Clusterstock
DeLong’s reference to Henry Blodget is because that’s where my piece was picked up. Fact is, DeLong seems to have lobbied Blodget to drop me from Clusterstock and Business Insider—and it worked, too, because although Henry didn’t cut me, my relationship with Joe Weisenthal, Blodget’s editor, was permanently soured because of this incident.
 |
| Joe Weisenthal |
Weisenthal would go on to make my life fairly unpleasant insofar as Business Insider was concerned: Arbitrary edits that hurt my posts, yanking my pieces on a whim, then running pieces by other people that plagiarized my work.
Yeah, you read right: Weisenthal knowingly ran posts by other people that blatantly plagiarized my work. I mean Weisenthal did everything an editor can do to antagonize a writer without actually having the balls to drop him outright.
Naturally, I stopped writing for their outfit shortly thereafter.
What DeLong did was pretty mean, if you think about it: Lobbying to get an up-and-coming blogger to lose his spot at the table. BI and Clusterstock were running my pieces with my name in the title—a featured editorialist. Hey, that’s something: That’s the start of name-brand recognition.
But DeLong especially didn’t like me—because I nailed his precious Krugman. So I got shafted by some back-door shenanigans, which I experienced as passive-aggressive nonsense from Weisenthal.
Think of it from especially poor Weisenthal’s position: As a professional editor, he wants a job in the future. Business Insider might fold some day, but Weisenthal will still need a paycheck—after all, he wants a career, and he’s a young guy: In his estimation, he can’t stand on principle. He can’t afford to antagonize putatively well-respected, influential people like DeLong and Krugman. Hell, he might need to interview them some day—he might need to ask them for a job some day.
So from Weisenthal’s position, what’s passively-aggressively sabotaging a relationship with a new blogger, compared to antagonizing people who will influence your career?
Nothing.
Now, if I’m being honest—and I try to be—my first piece wasn’t without fault: Both Leonard’s piece and DeLong’s piece nailed me on something that was actually true—and a severe weakness in my original post:
I had not carefully cited any sources showing that Krugman was advocating war as a fiscal stimulus. It’s obvious that that’s Krugman’s position—but I hadn’t cited sources. Thus my piece could be attacked and dismissed as a mere rant, rather than an argument.
And so like Talmudic scholars dismissing an obviously true statement—say, that the sky is blue—because I didn’t cite any sources, they gathered up their righteousness like the robe of an ancient sage, and nailed me for it.
You know me: I’m not one to take things lying down. But I’m also not one to go off half-cocked. I did what was retrospectively the smart thing—I waited.
Fate was kind, and gave me an opportunity shortly thereafter:
David Broder, the Washington Post columnist, wrote a piece basically advocating war with Iran, as a way to politically unify the country. (Yeah, insane, I know.)
The KDI—in the shape of a DeLong rant—went to town on Broder.
 |
| Brad DeLong |
Of course, DeLong’s hit piece on Broder was completely hypocritical. After all, Broder was advocating a war for political benefit, while Krugman was advocating war for economic benefit.
DeLong—rightfully—went medieval on Broder’s ass. But insofar as Krugman’s advocacy of the same “War Is The Solution” stance, DeLong was smiling and silently panting like a lapdog in the arms of a society lady stroking his teeny-tiny head.
In other words, DeLong left the door wide open for me—so I stepped through it.
I called my piece The Contradictions In The Life of A Fluffer.
And this time around, I did the smart thing: I referenced Krugman up the yin-yang.
Hell, at Dartmouth I got taught close reading and hard-core analysis when I studied philosophy—might as well use that god-forsakenly expensive education, right?
So I did: I did a close read of Krugman’s bullshit, and I made it a point of really catching every little nuance of everything Krugman has said, showing how the K-ster Monster from Princeton Junction is essentially advocating war in order to stimulate the economy.
As a side benefit, I also slimed DeLong so bad, he actually wound up changing the name of his blog for a while, as its original title—“Grasping Reality With Both Hands”—was a bit too apropos to my point that DeLong was Krugman’s fluffer. (If you don’t know what a fluffer is, read the piece.)
Yves Smith over at naked capitalism sent me a private e-mail, telling me that some people had commented to her about the fluffer piece, saying they felt actually sorry for DeLong after they read it.
I thought, “Yeay team!” (What can I say: I’m a vindictive bastard.)
The whole experience was an object lesson in the way the blogosphere works: How the best writing in the world, the most thoughtful analysis in the world, won’t necessarily get you mainstream notice—because there are gatekeepers who keep the riffraff out.
The KDI—in the shape of people like Brad DeLong in academia, and Andrew Leonard at Salon in the world of journalism—are the people who keep out the riffraff.
It also made me realize—because of Weisenthal’s passive-aggressive reaction that directly led to my exiting Business Insider—how insidious the whole Krugman Defense Industry really is: They are the self-appointed gatekeepers, the sentries you have to pass, in order to reach the mainstream, and thus have influence on the general conversation.
Because of this whole run in with the KDI, I no longer have a place in the mainstream discourse. I write my blog, get fairly big numbers, write what most people would consider thoughtful, intelligent posts—but I’m not considered “serious”. And therefore, none of my ideas or posts are discussed at levels where they might actually make a difference.
This gatekeeping by the KDI and other such cliques—mind you, on both the Left and the Right—keeps strong ideas from reaching the people with power: Ideas which might potentially help our society. And thus our society is poorer for it, because it cannot draw upon the best ideas in order to form a solution to a problem besetting us all: Only the ideas these cliques on both the Left and the Right allow to reach the table are considered—while everything else is automatically regarded as “fringe”.
For instance, I wrote a major piece of political philosophy—Why Democracies Will Always Go Bankrupt—which is essentially a valid, sound proof of something that’s been eluding economists for a couple of hundred years.
Yet nobody discusses it—in a very real sense, it doesn’t exist. Which is a shame, because it might help the discourse, and get our society closer to adopting a sane macro-economic standing.
I’ve been shut out of the mainstream. Which is fine by me on a personal level, but sad if you think about it on the level of social discourse: Tired ideas—like the KDI’s sacred Keynesianism, like the Right’s Corporatism—are repeated round and round, while fresh new ideas are locked out, and therefore never considered.
Thus new ideas cannot help the wider society—because they’re not allowed a place at the table.
And what’s worse, patently insane, blatantly immoral ideas—like Krugman’s notion about how war would fix all our economic problems, like the Right’s notion that what’s good for the banksters is good for America, when the exact opposite is closer to the truth—are allowed to grow like brain cancer on the body politic.
So I just wanted to tell you, Great Post!, as well as Watch Out! These people will come after you, if they can.
And if they can’t, they’ll ignore you as completely as if you didn’t exist. And to them, if you don’t exist, then your ideas don’t exist—and therefore aren’t worth repeating.
And thus your work will have no impact—and at the end of the day, isn’t impact what every writer wants? Don’t we want our ideas to help build a better society for us all?
As always, all the best,
GL
»
- 20030 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Gonzalo, you nailed the issues right on the head. Especially regarding your career analysis on Joe Weaselthal. That kind of realpolitik is one of the things eating out America... those that see the wrongs don't dare stand up.
You're #1 in my book. Thanks.
Again, thank you!
GL
Gonzala,
I thought your essay last year on how/why the middle class revolution will begin and play out was brilliant [Gonzalo Lira On The Coming Middle-Class Anarchy | zero hedge], but I find your claims of looming "hyperinflation" seriously deficient, and would love for you to write some fresh analysis for all of us at ZH as to what past examples of hyperinflation can be found within the borders of any nation having the world's reserve currency (and largest economy, by a wide margin).
Don't assume that I have a dogma on this matter that can't be shaken, but history is not on your side in making the claims that you have, and the historical examples you held out as to the whys/hows/whens of hyperinflation happening in the United States are seriously poor ones, IMO.
This is Fight Club, so do not take personal offense at my Piss & Vinegar challenge of your claims.
Business Insider is obviously a tool of the Democrat party, and that guy Weisenthal is a major douche. So good for you.
But you won't be getting into the upper echelons anytime soon when you make public statements like, "Sarah Palin's an idiot!" which I heard on a podcast (Steve Patterson's I think). She's annoying maybe, frightening to a lot of people, but she's no idiot. You don't get to be Governor of a state by being an idiot. Stop trying to be so controversial that you say stupid things, and maybe you'll get somewhere.
"You don't get to be Governor of a state by being an idiot."
Chimpy and Obama got elected POTUS.
Obama didn't get elected, his teleprompter did.
Now that you mention it, Chimpy didn't actually win either. New fangled devices causing all sorta havoc.
They are not idiots either. Both not good Presidents, but not idiots.
I would bet $100 for every internet commando that throws around the word "idiot" towards former/current Presidents, put them both on a stage in front of millions of people and ask them to pontificate upon current events WITHOUT looking like a moron or pissing off 49% of the electorate, the former/current President would win every time.
Take it to the bank.
Their acting skills couldn't hold a candle to those of Reagan.
This is fight club... right? So are we really supporting self serving quitters?
On top of that she was incapable of answering simple questions from of a soft ball reporter like Katy Couric among others. It was so bad they Mccain people had to keep her off the air for fear of further embarrassment.
She is a big chunk of the reason we have Obama right now. I looked at her, I looked at Mccain, and came to the conclusion that she would be a disaster WHEN something happened to Mccain. I think Mccain would have been a disaster too, especially after that comment about not knowing much about the economy.
#41
Actually, to be honest, Palin is the only reason McCain got as close to Obama as he did. If he had picked some plain vanilla Republican like Romney or Pawlenty, conservatives would have stayed home, especially after the banking crisis initiated on September 15th.
Sarah Palin isn't the reason Obama is in the White House. Feckless, idiotard independent voters who were buffaloed by an economic panic and a highly sophisticated propaganda campaign share most of the blame.
Palin, to her credit, predicted much of what Obama would do once he got to the White House. If you voted for Obama because of Palin, then you share much of the blame for this disaster of an administration, and blame Palin simply for being a messenger that you disliked.
I voted for McCain because I grew to mistrust Obama and his Cult of Personality, but I had no idea how much of a prisonor of the banksters Obama turned out to be.
The way she muffed those questions from Couric is understandable. She was a Governor of a state, not really involved in international politics. Most everything Sarah puts out now via FB is well thought out, imminently more thoughtful than your anti-Palin rantings.
victor82 nailed it.
.
Krugmen Is just Trying to keep his spot light. None of the policies the keyenians adopted worked. So How does he keep credibility? Claim it wasnt enough. Since then, we have had 9.0 earthquakes and it wasnt big enough. They raise the debt celing, it wasnt high enough. They bail out greece, it wasnt often enough. We go to war with libya, it wasnt distructive enough. Go to war with aliens! Advocate the impossible so the theory cannot be disproven.
weisenthal is a dickhead.
I paid Lira $30 to find out "secrets" to surviving the coming financial upheaval. He said I should buy precious metals. Wow. Thanks. I did learn something from his presentation though; he smokes too much weed.
You asked a simple question that has a fairly simple answer.
Just like Ron Paul getting shut out by MSM.
Weisenthal single-handedly ruined Business Insider. He's a jerk.
You're obsolete Mr. Wordsworth!!
You ought to read some of Krugman's post about Cullen Roche. His commentators are even further out there. Agree with or disagree with Cullen or whatever but wow respect is not in their vocabulary.
That's some good shit. One of the reasons this site stands alone.
For a more peaceful solution, maybe Krugman should ask Google to buy Iran...... or maybe Greece would be safer ;+l
I doubt that Krugman litarally meant that we should start another war to fix the economy. Krugman believes the world is powered by money and more money will always produce more things. When asked what was responsible for the past 150 years of persistent economic growth which is an anomoly in contrast to the rest of human civilization, Krugman responded, " it is entirely attributable to our greater understanding of economics".
I believe the past 150 years of persistent economic growth and the explosive growth in technology is primarily attributable to energy, specifically, crude oil, coal and natural gas.
The idea that the world is powered by money rather than energy is only accurate as long as there is an infinite capacity for growth in producing energy. With China putting thousands of new cars and trucks on their new roads every day the numbers have become too big to grow commensurate with debt. Yesmen like Krugman and their ideas rise to the highest levels of government because they tell governments what they want to hear, that they can grow infinitely.
the world is powered by the sun...the plants who died and decayed to provide us with oil...well, they were powered by the sun...
Giving Krugman the benefit of the doubt is a huge mistake.
Even talking about Krugman is a distraction from the people wielding the decision making pens. There were/are Paulson, Geithner, Summers, Bernanke et al
Krugman has never been part of that circle of influence.
Ridiculous all of you. No one is "advocating for war" and even more hilarious is Phuck Face Delong or the hilariously named George Washington "talking peace." let it go.
You are not of the body.
I've been working out can't you tell? Now all togther ZH's "CODE RED! CODE RED!"
Multiple inbound.
Vampire, vampire, vampire!!!
If no one is advocating war, how come we are fighting so many of them?
+5 (or is it 6 now?)
ORI
Because war brings prosperity for all?
....of the elites....
Does this mean the quadrillions we saved on the debt ceiling not invading Mars isn't gonna happen?
Expanded welfare programs.
Can see that coming.
Must support the Bread and Circus businesses.
Bread and Circuses are irrelevant.
Those who provide Bread and Circuses are relevant.
They alone provide the Bread and Circuses to mesmerize the peasantry, whilst remitting large campaign contributions and distribute propaganda.
Support your Bread and Circus Providers.
Gotta dig a little deeper into the rabbit hole, people.
Funny RF.
ORI
Nice retort.
You're right, it does sound a bit like score-settling...
Hey, I told you that I'm a vindictive bastard: You were warned!
Cheers,
GL
Nice to see you. Hope your new site is doing well.
Doing very well, thank you: +500 members. Check it out, if you're interested, LiraSPG.com
GL
Prima donna writers, who wish the limelight, and I quote:
"won’t necessarily get you mainstream notice."
Oh Too Bad GL, you know exactly what you have to say and whose balls you have to lick to get it.
And why are you crying throughout the article cause you wasn't tweated fairly.
Rule Number 1: Know the Rules.
Rule Number 2: Play By the Rules.
Rule Number 3: Don't be surprised if you ignore 1 and 2 if your balls get squeezed.
/ignorant dork/
My opinion of you just went up 1/2 a notch, Gonzalo. I still remember you saying Pinochet was great so I'm no fan of yours. But you're right about all of those scumbags except you go on and on about how sad it is...bla bla bla
Get real, man. This is fascism, you know it (unless you're another closet fascist except a bit anti-imperialist like many other latinoamericanos) so why the moaning baloney?
Show me where I ever said "Pinochet was great".
Don't say bullshit about me unless you can back it up, understand Whisky Tango?
Good.
GL
I think the little guy is conflating Pino with the piece you did on the reforms of the retirment system in Chile under his 'reign'. Not that Pino was all bad. Chile sucks way less than ALL of its neighbors and Pino, love/hate/otherwise was a serious part of what is now modern Chile.
What Krugman and, well, pretty much every single person on the planet has failed to realise is that we've finally hit on the leisure dilemma.
We finally produce so much per person that there is more than enough for everyone to live fairly comfortably.
That is, if our financial system wasn't a sadistic treadmill that tilts higher every time we pick up the pace.
But if you think about it for a minute, and you think clearly, you'll come to the conclusion that without the debt, every living adult could easily support themselves and a child in moderate comfort (Like royalty by historical standards) by working roughly 30 hours a week.
The tragedy is that we failed to plan for this day. So we have a massive disparity of working hours. Those that work, work 'full time', and pay taxes to support those who don't work.
If it was balanced out, we'd shift to a world where everyone worked roughly the same number of hours and living standards would condense like the socialist European states into a majority middle class. But we can't. Because of the debt. Sigh.
So instead we get nutters like Krugman telling us that we have to do busy work. Work that serves no purpose other than to create work.
I'd rather play in the park, thanks.
My 2c.
There is a reason the teachers union is the most powerful union in the USA. with public sector unions right behind.
The average school year in the USA is 180 days. The typical private sector work year is 250 days ...
Teachers are smart and have planned ahead like you suggested. They also typically get cradle to grave benefits and pensions. Thats why MSNBC sends Ed Shultz to organize protests Wisconsin on slow news days.
Not a bad observation, myne. If taxes, health care and oil weren't so expensive (due to constant intereference by warmongers and central planners) then I could probably work a minimum wage job and still live okay.
That's the other funny thing, Dick.
What do you think would happen to wages if everyone was employed (but limited via overtime rates to around 30 hours)?
Notice those graphs that show the 'labour share of revenue'?
I think there's a great chance they'd start to tick upwards.
Even here (Oz), we spend a full third of our tax money on welfare. We've only got 5% unemployment, and a participation rate of 65%. So that means there's about 30% of the country who are elderly, disabled, students or children. Nevertheless, 5% of 30% is still 1.5% of all our taxes. Dropping our working hours by a couple of percent (at the start of a financial year to reduce the noticable impact via CPI pay adjustments) should result in our participation rate ticking upward slightly, perhaps resulting in nearly zero unemployment. Economists like Krugman would freak at that, but what's the problem? Everyone's supporting themselves! Minimum wages rise very quickly when there's a shrinking pool of labour. Suddenly our tax rate drops 1.5%. Suddenly, the labour share of revenue rises to fair levels. Suddenly a bunch of incompetant, bloated companies fail - and no one cares because an efficient company takes all the employees. Over time, as the hours are adjusted downwards, we find that people are healthier because they go outside more often. Healthcare costs (another 3rd of the budget) decline.
This is the goal we have been working towards since the dawn of time. Ultimately we are all lazy workers. We want to automate as much as possible so we get more spare time. The ONLY factor holding us back is debt.
"I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."
"The things you own, end up owning you." (Debt)
"It is only when you have lost everything that you are free to do ANYTHING." (The economy's fucked. We're now more than ever, free to completely change the way we do things)
People, en masse, frustrate the living shit out of me.
We create these systems to support us, only to realise that we've built an exoskeleton we cannot remove in a room with doors too small for it to exit. A cage of our own design that traps us in slavery to ourselves.
Myne-
We work 40%+ of our time to support some far-flung future, paying interest on a debt from which we got little benefit.
Thanks for depressing me.
Myne, that's a sweet read. People forget that talk of a "20 hour week" was serious in the 60's and 70's. Automation, robotics, computers, hyper efficient "paperless offices". Productivity and GDP continued to rise but workers started to get less and less share of GDP as wages. More went into profits for shareholders.
Workers had to work longer hours to make up for the shortfall, and as real wages flatlined started to get into debt to try and 'keep ahead'. The money for those interest bearing loans to workers were provided by the capitalist class who had found themselves with plenty of spare money due to skimming money from the working class in the first place.
So what you refuse to pay in increased wages, you provide in loans which then have to be paid back to you with interest. Brilliant eh.
my vote for one of the ZH top 10 comments of all time.
"I'd rather play in the park, thanks."
yeah me too. see you there.
I'm honoured.
*bow*
Thank you!
we must be mindful of Clauswitz's famous dictum-"War is the continuation of business by other means". what is it about that insight that you ignorant plebians cannot understand? bwahahahahahahaha!
I'm pretty sure Clausewitz said it was Politics by other means.
thank you astute rodent for the correction.yet on further investigation it's actually "war is the continuation of policy by other means"
uh oh...details...
policy...politics.
What's the diff?
Depends on the translation.
Policy is set by TPTB. Politics is the circus show out on for distraction.
Regarding the US, QE3 is coming. It will be repackaged & sold in another name. TBA.
Meanwhile, Europe burns and reinforces that Collective Government is the solution to EU woes. The fog entails collecting on all financial transactions to siphon from loyal participants who contributed to the broken system that were guaranteed an agreed payout.
The snake is at 75% in consuming its entire body. No evidence will be left behind. MSM will continue to spin the blame game as the mission to keep separation.
Public Image Ltd. - Banging The Door
Mr. Lira,
You do not conform to the zeitgeist. You will never be allowed into the club of those who know better for us than we do ourselves. Consider it badge of honor and continue to expose folly and hypocrisy as often as you can. I am disappointed, though, in your lack of will to ski in a blizzard. That has much more potential in providing satisfaction than a letter to Mr. Washington.
Dear Peter Stumped,
The zeitgeist have had a good roadmap to observe, but you're going to receive a big public NO within your think tank cult planning ways. The Venus Project is just another progressive wet dream. Keep having your nightly wet dreams for society change & hope ideology, winks. Your plan cannot sustain the cost to implement and manage effectively beyond 12 months, unless you trick the serfs into investing into another lucrative investment vehicle. This package will have to be dressed up to outdo SS trust fund promises. LOL
Your PENUS Project will never gain traction.
Dear Atomizer,
I do not believe you grasped the intent of my message and thank you for the ad hominem. Can you explain how what I wrote is in any way related to social engineering and the Venus Project?
I've used DeLong and Krugman as barometers with which to judge if a person is enlightened or merely highly educated. Anyone who takes their sewage runoff seriously is a waste of time.
And Business Insider? Shit, I've seen peepshow storefronts less tacky than that Fukushima of a website.
"...like the Right’s notion that what’s good for the banksters is good for America,"? There is one political party you boob, and it works for the Global Bank Cartel. H.W. Jefferson Bush-Obama is one person. Dartmouth was a total waste after all...
This is impossible. Krugman is a Nobel Laureate.
lol! beady eyed Buttman.
you outdid yourself with this one dubby.
question is: who's holding the other end of the collar?
This whole money debate makes me dizzy. I think they have done a great job of making an issue that is not clear seem black and white. When I read Krugman I read a defense of government spending to take place where the debt based consumption fell off. Maybe I'm niave in thinking that he isn't really proposing war with Aliens. That said it makes me sick that he doesn't address the real issue that all money must be created as debt. That is absurd. Why doesn't the government really create money and spend it to put people to work. No increase in debt. No free hand out to the banks. Just really money created to put American to work. Is that so crazy? We know at least half of the unemployed would like a job because a few years ago they had one. I argue that real money printing that is used to reduce taxes and pay people to work without creating new debt would be a good thing.
Instead we print free money for the banks so they can buy oil futures and drive up the cost of gas. That is fucked up. JMHO.
What bothers me is not that Krugman is saying they need something disastrous so why not pretend there is something so it will fix the real disaster of looming Depression; what bothers me is that he doesn't understand that basing a system on needing disasters is utter insanity. That is like driving your car everyday just hoping to get into an accident that won't kill you, just hurt you enough so that you can live a bit longer...but unable to walk and talk.
Would the methaphor be better if aliens were congress and we hired people to bitch slap reality into them? Maybe we could all get behind that?
That is a reality I could support.
If Krugman had any sense of reality, he'd recognize that we don't need to create a disaster... we already have a #uckin disaster... it's called total debt and unfunded liabilties in excess of $140 Trillion dollars.
If this doesn't appear to be a disaster, then I don't know what is.
Thank Yahweh for Krugman as with his "Fake Alien Invasion" (not a "WAR") scenario, he outed what is supposed to be the ultimate illuminati takeover; launching a "fake" war against the "aliens" resulting in even more confiscation of middle class wealth into the hands of the to 1/10 of 1 percent.
Don't know 'bout you guys but I'm about fed up with all the market manipulation, lies, outright fraud that goes unprosecuted, etc.
I think Krugman is probably right that we need to spend a ton of money to get things started, but before we do that, this time we the people are going to need to stamp out the snakes. Otherwise, they just come back.
Krugman is a nut job for using war as a methaphor for useless spending to suck up excess labor in the market place due to the tapping of of the fractional reserve banking system for creating money. Just as dumb as Keynes idea to dig holes and fill them back up. But why not print some money and put these people to work. We could have them do useful things. Hell we could.. wait this is crazy just elimanate federal income taxes for 2 years and fund the current government with printed money. No new useless jobs just the same semi-useless jobs we have now. I'm sure the tax money that would go directly back to the consumer would generate a nice soft landing for the economy and let consumers decide what they want to spend the money on. ie ipads. Instead we continue to print money for the banks so a small group of egalitarians can continue to have homes with 20 rooms and 10 bathrooms. Yes they must be full of shit.
snarc: I think we should have a solar panel on every house. setup WPA solar panel factories in every city with over 25,000 people.
.... err wait. Obama's been president for 3 years now and still has not got a single solar panel on the roof of the whitehouse like he promised on the first campaign trail.
I'm surrounded by "the right" and none of them support bank bailouts.
The reason Krugman advocates war is that subconciously he knows the New Deal did NOT end the depression and he mistakenly thinks the war did. In reality, the war ended the New Deal. When the war came to an end, there was a short contraction due to restructuring society and then the economy took off, free from the shackles of the New deal.
We've always been at war with Eurasia...
The useful idiots really did a bang up job convincing Americans that it was "the right" that wants perpetual war.
Gonzalo: wow! Welcome to the Tea Party. The Tea Party isn't any "group", but it is a state of mind--evidently u b there.
But, no, you don't join. You just do what you do. And thank you for your post.
And, well, Krugman is wrong on the reason that the economy turned around after WWII--It was the '46 Congress that put ol' Harry S. Truman on a short leash and did what Silent Cal did in 1920==they slurped in federal government expenditures, realigned the economy, and launched the post WWII expansion. It helped that a) everyone in the world was buying from the US and b) that the Fed kept interest rates low (as we see today).
Actually, if you go through Krugman's entire screed, you'll see that he's advocating alien invasion as an economic stimulus.
John Ringo isn't available for comment.
- Ned
Great to see a post from you GL. So here's my rant...
#UCKIN LIBERALS...
They're all the same. They have abandoned religion and anything of tradition; espouse the new world of tomorrow as always better. They hug trees, support murder of the unborn child and are bootlickers of the euthanasia movement. They portray themselves above us so called "religious nuts" who are the real evil ones in their view. As long as they sugar coat war in sanitized language, they are better than everyone else and can get away with it. The left are just a bunch of hypocrites. I can't think of any better word to describe them.
You know, despite Bush looking like a moron sometimes, the man spoke unapologetically and was authentic (even if he was a bit hokey).
Krugman and his sludge supporters are now exposed for what they really are. Just a bunch of angry little men looking for grandeur in a world that up to now has granted them what they want. The left is just as bad as the extreme right... they just play better in the media.
For however much I despise the left, the left has lost its way and is bankrupt. We do need the left to have a balanced democracy, but not the cesspool that it has become.
Secularism has run its course. Society has been centrally planned to the point that all creativity and spirituality has been snuffed from the system. They do not have any more ways to extract creativity, or even conflict out of the systems anymore. The movers and shakers who innovate and move society forward have been cuckold into numbness. Which was the result they thought they wanted, but are now like Alexander.
Wise words...
Come on GL, you don't REALLY think others are to blame for this, do you?
Poop on the Krug all you want (we all do) but you have said plenty of other stuff to turn people off you in numerous articles - right?
Just sayin
Krugman is irrelevant. He is not an influential thinker. Why are we wasting the bandwidth?
Because when you get one of them down on the ground you never let them back up, ever.
This time is different...no quarter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKOngTfTMs0
How the best writing in the world, the most thoughtful analysis in the world, won’t necessarily get you mainstream notice.
Lira, how's that hyperinflation forecast for 2009 and again for 2010 paying off for you?
Have to say though that the weakest, most outrageous analysis sure does draw comments.
"The Tea Party isn't any "group", but it is a state of mind"
Exactamundo.
I really think it freaks out the stodgy old guard GOP blue bloods more than the skittle shitting"progressive" unicorns...they're both clueless. They both think we're "terrorists" or sumpin anyways...lol.
Its all good bruh ;-)
Aliens are closer then you think
http://lordschmutz.wordpress.com/
Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke are both working off their memories of being little nobody pussies in the third grade and their entire act is about getting even with a world that saw them for the nobodies they were early on and rejected them. So dig in, ignore the hurt and pain, get yourself a position and some 'credibility', and then get your revenge on the world. These guys are both pathetic losers who think that somehow being clever will make up for the fact that they are non-entities.
this might be the dumbest item yet on ZH. love the site, but sheesh, get a grip. his article isn's pushing for war, can anyone honestly read this and think he is promoting war?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/oh-what-a-lovely-war/
Honestly? No.
But dishonestly creating an evil Krugman strawman gets readers and comments. Don't you know the game?
Or perhaps just plain delusional.
Well, he does not actually state, "We need to go to war to boost our economy" but he clearly implies it.
The problem with his increased spending model is that a peace time economy in a 'democratic capitalist" society cannot function in the manner that a war time command economy does. You must not factor out the massive 'hiring' the military complex did during the 1940's. This took near 12 million men out of the work force and essentially turned them into pure consumers. Soldiers do not produce anything, they destroy only (read consume). Governments 'paid' for this production through promissory notes and debt obligations and forced savings on producers (eg. there was no cash economy, most goods were purchased with ration cards). Governments used this forced savings to fuel more 'consumption' by soldiers. This cannot happen in a peace time economy.
One must also factor in produced goods were 'used up' and had limited lifespans which required new production (both in bodies and in goods) to replace at a rapid rate. This is a highly inefficient use of resources and cannot (should not) be kept up in the long term or there will be significant environmental damage. This rapid destruction of produced goods also cannot be reproduced in a peace time economy.
Though Kruggers does not actually state that he is in favor of war to boost the economy, he lauds an economic system that can only be produced in total war conditions. Ergo he is in support of total war.
You know what? For once I agree with Krugman. We would do the country and world a whole lot of good if we declared and practiced an all out physical shooting war... against Krugman.
It is long past time for theorists to be the first to experience the consequences of their theories.
Normally it would be sufficient to air-drop Krugman onto the front line of some existing shooting war, but in this case, that is woefully insufficient.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-03-12/201786/
rick the sweetheart perry making blanket denials back in 2004 about getting his gay on .......
That's our next president you're speaking of! (Goddess help us all...)
obama is the man. you watch and see what happens. he is a 8 year man. he has powerful friends....
http://ndn3.newsweek.com/media/23/Nw_042610.jpg
here is sweet pea posing with his broke back mountain lucchese boots on , the dick washer.....
This man is giving beards a bad name.
Sorry to hear your story. I didn't know your history. I have read your thoughtful articles now and then, often disagree on what some might call subtleties, but appreciate your attempts to be thoughtful. Next time you want a skiing partner in Chile, let me know and I'll join you... as long as we can go stare at the milky way for a couple nights up atacama way.
the only thing i have against chile is that they stole my state flag....:)
Other way around: The Texas flag was designed about a dozen years AFTER the Chilean flag. Look it up if you don't believe me.
GL
What do you people have against Krugman? No one who reads his columns can think he wants us to go to war. Here is his response to those who believe what they want to believe about him:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/evil-me/
krug came out sounding pretty good when this mess first started, then he resorted to the mean. he did some major flip flopping and his true self and his ideologies started coming out.........he is dead man walking around here for the forseeable future. it would be nice for that asshole to try and get on this blog and we shall see what would happen then. nobel prize or no nobel prize........he would get punked......
Ewige Blumenkraft!
.
Dear Gonzalo,
You stated that:
This is a very presumptuous statement to make. How do you know his work will have no impact? Can you read the minds of every reader of GW's posts, and see that GW's work has no impact on them?
I get the point you are trying to make. However, I disagree with it, since it places far too much importance upon the mainstream to effect change, based on receiving new ideas from the fringe. I call BS on that idea. It is the fringe which effects change, with the mainstream merely sheepishly following behind. That is the way it has always been.
Whether that change is good or bad is not my point. My point is merely to illustrate, that change does not come from fringe new ideas being adopted by the mainstream who then effect the change. No. Rather, it comes from fringe new ideas being slowly accepted and adopted, first at the fringes, and ultimately by the mainstream, who are the last to adopt it, and are merely following the zeitgeist of the new idea, once it has permeated from the fringes to the core.
It is irrelevant whether new ideas from the fringe enter the mainstream discourse or not, in order to effect change. Change comes regardless. Since once inside the discourse, fringe or mainstream, new ideas permeate regardless.
PeaBird
"I no longer have a place in the mainstream discourse.... I’m not considered “serious”."
I am afraid Gonzalo has this exactly backwards. People are fleeing "mainstream discourse" because it is not serious. Yet Gonzalo wants to swim upstream? Did he hit his head on a black diamond ski trail? I'm worried about him.
The fact that there is such "debate" on ZH whether Krugman is a 110% feckin' moron is troubling. Reading the NYT and Moscow based Pravda is essentially reading the same thoughts twice.
Bad and violent times a comin' ..... and yes because of Krugman types and their dreamin' friends.
just let your work speak for itself
Cura nihil aliud nisi ut valeas
I could rant and go on pretty much parroting Ron Paul's Iran debate comments. Better yet go on about how the first gulf war was to keep Bush family from going to jail for the S&L thefts. Your touching on "Who is this chicken shit?" Wellstone stuff...
What is needed is forced reading ( “A clockwork Orange” style) of Rothbard's America’s Great Depression.
http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
Krugman, and for that matter Keynesian propagandist are losing the minds and hearts on the FED. The wars, occupation and military offense of interventionist is next. Again “ Cura nihil aliud nisi ut valeas”
Peace and remember what they don't want is intelegent well spoken public that understands the usury issues.
As spooner wrote
"The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents -- men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest -- stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved."
Quote by:
Lysander Spooner
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Source:
"No Treason #6" (1870)
WOW....THIS IS A GREAT POST ! THanks for your input, thanks for GW too, I love his posts...As a newbie (1yrs 13 months), I did not have the opportunity to read you before...I sure will do so now !
Well I think Gonzalo Lira is an idiot, Krugman is a bigger idiot. However, I do respect Lira for debunking and taking on Krugman. Lira is an intelligent guy. However, his political agenda as well as cause and effect conclusions are seriously flawed. Interesting article. GW keep up the good work.
I think Krugman is a genius. That said an economist is like a weatherman who predicts it could rain or shine depending upon the weather. The problem we have is that during good times, the squirrel did not put aside any nuts for the bad times.
However, Krugman was being sarcastic when he said we needed a war. Thats very clear and all you Krugman haters are spinning to say he was calling for a war, anyone who reads Krugman knows he is not a war monger in any respect.