Paul Krugman

Dr Doom And The Cult Of Death.

Barack Hussein and the Marxist Clown College, including the functionally impaired minions lurking in the (former) White House, dreaming their dreams of Marxian Utopia. Spawned, nurtured and polished by radical socialist academics, who haven’t the first clue as to how the country they are presuming to dictate to really works.

To a man, or for you PC hangups, to a person, they know nothing past their feverish dreams of Utopian perfection, blithely ignoring the perspective history has taught us about every single attempt at collective socialism… or if it floats your boat, Keynesian economics.

Ancient Rome, a massive behemoth which, when the trappings of empire were stripped away, never could self-sustain. Its people addicted to government grain handouts, farmers taxed by the output of their production leaving little incentive to grow more food, extravagant spectaculars to keep the ordinary Roman’s mind off his poverty, a government rife with corruption and intrigue.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. This scenario of ancient Rome could be Washington. It certainly has all the trappings of a decadent empire.

We’re watching the fruits of the almost universally despised Obamacare begin to ripen as it’s shaping up to be a disaster on every level… and there’s crap buried throughout this monstrous tome which could well break the bank by itself, let alone what we can see at this point.

One of the most glaring of the many outrageous lies perpetrated by Barack Hussein is that our seniors would be able to keep their Medicare and their own doctors. Guess what? Half a trillion dollars has been stripped away from Medicare and the Obama administration is trying to force 30 million people into a one-size-fits-all medical system, doomed to failure from its inception.

Those ‘death panels’ that the liberal media had such fun with Sarah Palin over? Guess what? They’re real… just ask Paul Krugman. He finally came out and said the death panels will be working overtime to rid us of those pesky seniors and oh, by the way, we need a VAT tax to help fund the government.

So we see that Obama is stripping medical coverage and benefits from seniors across this country. More frightening still are the hundreds of doctors whose practices can no longer afford to take Medicare patients because their payment schedules have been decimated by the DeMarxists’ depredations.

Dr Doom… and the cult of death. Only one of several for our good Doctor. Tell our Conservative Senators and Representatives that we don’t want Obama care fixed. We want it repealed, to remain forever on the manure pile of history.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Krugman's Keynesian Devotion Dooms Us to Future Downturns

I try to read all of Princeton economist and New York Times’ contributor Paul Krugman’s columns. Call it a nerdy form of masochism. By the end of each article I’m often left ripping at my hair and gouging at my eyes, screaming madly, “how did this guy win a Nobel?!?” Then I’m reminded that Yasser Arafat and Al Gore are also Nobel laureates and that maybe I shouldn’t make such a big deal out of the award.

Regardless of my disdain for his ideology I simply cannot stop reading. His seemingly religious belief that spending for the sake of spending is the solution to any economic crisis is admirable in its consistency.

Then again, it’s also fun to watch him run in rhetorical circles when he’s wrong. Remember this gem?

“[Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issues to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.”

Oops, got that one wrong. Must’ve missed the $4.3 trillion in subprime mortgages.

Well in his latest column he gets it wrong again. But in all his economic vanity he can’t admit it. Quite the contrary, he predicts the future for us, the conservative fools, who seek to deter the government from spending us into bankruptcy. In true doom and gloom fashion he argues “[F]uture historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression.”

Fortunately, we, the conservative fools, have good company. The G-20 Summit, composed of leaders from the world’s largest economies, have decided that trimming deficits is the best way to achieve long term stability in the world economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been one of the most vocal advocates of putting government spending on a sustainable path. In a response to President Obama’s call for more stimulus, her government said,

“Nobody can seriously dispute that excessive public debts, not only in Europe, are one of the main causes of this crisis. That’s why they have to be reduced.”

Nobody? Is that a challenge? Apparently Paul Krugman took it as one. In his latest column Krguman explains why the silly know-nothings at the G-20 summit, with their commitment to fiscal sanity rather than spiraling deficits, will inevitably lead to the “Third Depression.” He writes:

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.

Gasp! Inadequate spending. Only in the wonderland that exists inside Krugman’s head could trillions of dollars in new government debt be considered “inadequate spending.” If the United States escaped the Great Depression by building tanks for World War II, Krugman wants us to escape this recession by building presses to print all the money we’ll need for his “stimulus.”

The problem is that Paul Krugman thinks myopically. We must spend, spend, spend and do it now, now, now. Forget the fact that we have no plan to solve these deficits in the long term, beyond inflating our currency to the point where deficits won’t matter. The rest of us have a more nuanced understanding. We actually possess the ability to assess the long-term. Moreover, the ability to think in future terms necessarily colors the way we act in the present.

As Shawn Tully of Forbes explains,

“[I]f investors are convinced that Washington has a plan to restore fiscal balance, they’ll be content with lower returns on their stocks, bonds and buildings for a simple reason: those returns will prove more stable and predictable. That comfort level, in turn, lowers risk premiums and raises the prices of equities, corporate bonds, houses, and office towers.

Right now, many investors and managers are simply terrified by the absence of a roadmap to avoid ruinous debt. “We need to know that Washington can make tough choices, that our leaders are willing to do things that are unpopular,” says Paul Willen, an economics professor at MIT. “More than anything, people need to feel that this is not out of control.”

Frankly we’re scared, not just of today’s economic downturn, but because of a future made cloudy by insurmountable government deficits. In the face of a frightening future, Americans are saving rather than spending, companies are shunning risk and entrepreneurialism, and foreign lenders may soon ask for higher interest rates to hedge against inflation.

Keynes once said, “in the end we are all dead.” Krugman seems to base his entire economic philosophy on this one sentence. There is little other explanation for why he puts so much emphasis on spending now regardless of whether we can pay for it later. Our generation deserves better than that. Solving today’s crisis should not come with the caveat that we have doomed ourselves to another one.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee


A Universal Health Care Economy

Paul Krugman, 2005, saying universal health care would make us more like GM...

Why should we be a country in which hard working people aren't guaranteed health care if they need it? ... But the problem is that ... our economy is starting to look more like Wal-Mart and less like General Motors in the good days. The share of workers who get benefits at all is declining and the quality of the benefits.

Wal-Mart is very profitable. GM filed for bankruptcy.

The Health Care Tax Spike

Paul Krugman is not concerned about how much universal health care will cost taxpayers.

I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts.

Krugman waves away the matter of cost with "One way or another, the numbers will be brought into line".  However, in a 2005 interview with the Asian Times, Paul Krugman explained what he thinks we need to do...

"We should be getting 28% of GDP [gross domestic product] in revenue. We are only collecting 17%."

2008 tax revenue was 17.7% of GDP.  So, in Paul Krugman's ideal world, we would see a 60%+ increase in taxes.  But Krugman is "not that worried about the issue of costs."

This is what happens under a monopoly.  Consumer concerns about cost and value are called irresponsible, and the only "responsible" option - ever - is to gouge consumers for even more money.

If Democrats want to pass the health care legislation, then let's pass the tax hike necessary to pay for it simultaneously.  Let's bring those numbers into line and see how Americans feel about universal health care then.

Here Votes Everybody

Ezra Klein says the health care public plan is very popular in polling, so Senate opposition to it means "the Senate hates democracy" and "is resolutely, aggressively, anti-democratic."

Paul Krugman says poll results show that a majority of Americans prefer deficit reduction to higher government spending, but Krugman says "most people don’t know much about macroeconomics" so "the moral for Obama is, of course, to ignore this poll".


NOTE: Aside from the fact that people tend to accept or dismiss polls results based almost entirely on what they already wanted, I think there are two problems with the idea that popular support equals legitimacy, propriety or even democracy.

  1. Stated preference (poll) and revealed preference (how people actually behave when making a choice) differ widely.
  2. With no real price mechanism through which people can evaluate the costs and benefits of policy, we end up with simultaneous public support for massive spending and minimal taxation.  Well, who doesn't want something for nothing?

#1 is a political problem that can't really be changed - thus, we have a representative democracy, rather than direct democracy.

#2 is a policy problem that both Republicans and Democrats should be doing more to fix - e.g., indexing tax rates to spending, pigovian taxes, federalism, etc.

Krugman v. critics: PM edition

Paul Krugman wasted no time responding to the claims by Megan McArdle and others that he was the spiritual father of the housing bubble.

No, Paul. We don't think you were on the grassy knoll. Maybe Arlen Specter might. He was the investigator for the Warren Commission. We'll check if you want..

Problem is, Paul, the charge here isn't about pulling the trigger. It's about inciting the riot. And Clusterstock pulled up abundant evidence the McArdle quote was not out of context and entirely consistent with your agenda in 2001 and 2002.   

Paul, we understand. We've all called things wrong. Jeez, even people here think I'm wrong for writing at Dow 7000 the market had yet to reach bottom.  And it didn't until 6500. But people still say I got it wrong. Oh, well.  Maybe a little humility might be a good thing here, too.  Guess they forget my calling the 2008 mortgage hurricane. Oh well.

Now Paul, it you want to hang Alan Greenspan for botching the execution of the proposed strategy, I'm all ears.  How the "Maestro" didn't realize low short term bond rates=low ARM mortgage rates=excess housing appreciation---well, maybe that's what happens when you stop looking at the war in the trenches. 

If you do that, I'll back off thehack  charge for awhile.

The bigger problem , Paul, is once again you are out urging that the economy be pumped up when the track record in 1999-99 and 2005-07 is the Fed and the Congress are completely unable to turn off the spigot before things overheat.  Why will this time be any different unless you think liberal Democrats are immune to the avoidance of short-term political pain?   

I'm actually glad Krugman is an economist. Had he been an engineer, he would still be telling operators of nuclear plants to pull out the control rods to gain added power even after what happened at Chernobyl.

The brilliance of Nobel laureate Paul Krugman

I chime in with Megan McArdle (H/T)

Wow.  Just . . . wow.  .Paul Krugman, circa 2002

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. (emphasis added)

My word, was this ever nonsense on steroids.

I can assure you that the people actually involved in real estate finance out in the hinterland in the early '00's would have explained quite concisely the risks in "bubbling" real estate---since Mr. Krugman obviously ignored the popped bubble circa 1989-1990. But we aren't Ivy League eggheads and we weren't asked.

Let's deconstruct the impact of this remarkable paragraph

A) It was easy for Paul Krugman to identify the real estate bubble in 2006 since it was exactly what he lobbied for in 2002.

Worst still, you spent the second Bush term bashing him for presiding over policies you endorsed. 

B) Krugman often scoffed that the only tool Republicans ever want to use is cutting marginal tax rates. Look in the mirror, Paul.  Everytime the economy hits the least bit of trouble, you immediately demand the fire hose of stimulus --either monetary or fiscal or both--be turned on.  It' a Johnny-one-note approach.

C) The solution to the popped Nasdaq bubble was the real estate bubble. Now the solution to the popped real estate bubble is the federal budget bubble. When the Chinese stop lending to us. are we going to find another bubble to blow up?  What is this--Bazooka economics?

There's always a crisis in capitalism for Paul, and there's always a bubble to fix it.  Should the guys in Oslo do a recount about that award about now? 

Hatred bounces

Paul Krugman makes a very good point about the dominant conservative media being full of "conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric".   That's true (e.g.), and it's a genuine problem for the Right.  I'm not sure the Right has come to terms with just how destructive an echo chamber is - and has been - to perceptions of reality and propriety (and yes, the Left has dived into their own rhetorical sewer, but tu quoque is no excuse). 


The ongoing efforts to conflate the Tiller and Holocaust Museum murderers with the Right, conservatives or Republicans - or to imply that criticism of government is responsible for these murders - is absurd and offensive.  Would the critics change their political views if it turned out that one of the killers was a left wing militant?   No.

What's more, it's not something any of the critics actually believe.  Recall their outrage when Andrew Sullivan suggested that a fringe on the Left would fight against the US.  Of the idea that this fringe on the Left would "ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead", Duncan Black said, "Sullivan was one of the earliest adopters of the idea that the most appropriate response to September 11 was to figure how to to use it to pit American against American."

We've come full circle.  The Left is growing comfortable with the role of dominant bully.

And contra some on the Left, objections to the DHS Report (both the Left and Right wing reports) were legitimate.  The objection is not that they DHS studied the potential sources of violence, but that they made political generalizations ("the DHS description of these groups seems excessively broad with the potential for mischief").  It was political profiling.

Let's conclude with two central ironies:

  • The Left strenuously objects to connecting President Obama to socialists and William Ayers; meanwhile, they want to lump all conservatives in with militant radicals.

  • Meanwhile, as Doug Mataconis points out, "Conservatives who object to being tied to Von Brunn were eagerly associating Obama with Ayers and Wright."

 UPDATE: Jesse Walker makes excellent points, as well. (via Instapundit)

Krugman: Only "Wingnuts" Are Worried About Inflation

I know I shouldn't care what someone who has been so consistenly wrong about economics thinks (and before you peddlers of revisionist haterade chime in saying Krugman predicted the current crisis -- if you predict a recession every 2 months for a decade, you'll eventually be right.  Krugman's analysis of the current situation is so absurd its laughable).  That said, Paul Krugman doesn't think we should be worried worry about inflation.  Money quote:

Now, it’s true that the Fed has taken unprecedented actions lately. More specifically, it has been buying lots of debt both from the government and from the private sector, and paying for these purchases by crediting banks with extra reserves. And in ordinary times, this would be highly inflationary: banks, flush with reserves, would increase loans, which would drive up demand, which would push up prices.

But these aren’t ordinary times. Banks aren’t lending out their extra reserves. They’re just sitting on them — in effect, they’re sending the money right back to the Fed. So the Fed isn’t really printing money after all.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, so the second there's a hint of economic recovery we're not going to see a "butt"load of inflation?!?  I guess Krugman hasn't seen what's happened with Gas Prices the past month....

I'll file this in the laughable Krugman predictions file, right next to his 2003 recession call.

Paul Krugman is an Idiot: I have proof!!!

Priceless line from Krugman's column today:

The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.


Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.

Riiiiiiight...the state with the highest income tax rate in the country has a massive budget problem because taxes aren't high enough.  It can't have anything to do with state spending.  Apparently, there's no problem government has that can't be solved with just a little bit more of our money.

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.


Syndicate content