Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Paul Krugman's size worries

We need a big, big, BIG stimulus -- and if you disagree, you're stifling dissent:
During the initial discussion of the stimulus, the debate was framed almost entirely as a debate between Obama and those who said the stimulus was too big; the voices of those saying it was too small were largely frozen out. And they still are — if it weren’t for my position on the Times op-ed page, there would be hardly any major outlet for Keynesian concerns.
Oh, the loneliness of those who have only a New York Times column to advocate their views!

The soon-to-be Mrs. Suderman plays Keynesian concern-troll. (Via Memeorandum.)


  1. It's not that Krugman is wrong or mistaken in his view of Keynesianism, it's that he's exactly right. This is it folks; the whole of Keynes' (who was not an economist) insight: print a lot of money and distribute it through "public" works and, voila, everyone's standard of living will improve. Never mind that the printing of money does nothing to create (and much to destroy) the manufacturing of more food, clothing or shelter.

    Reminds me of a South Park episode featuring "the underwear gnomes." The underwear gnomes visit children in the night and steal their undergarments. The underwear gnomes' action plan is "(1) get the underwear; (2) bring the underwear back to the cave; and (3) Profit!"

    The gnomes remain quite unaware that there is something very important missing between (2) and (3). Krugman, however, is unikely to be dumb enough to believe what he spews out to the rest of us. More likely he's just another in a long lit of people who want to be useful to the regime. Often, however, when Krugman types facilitate totalitarian takeovers, they are the first to be shot as "intellectuals." Anyone who can shape public opinion, you see, is too dangerous to have around, regardless of how useful he has been in the past.

    So go ahead and argue for that second stimulus. As RSM notes, It Won't Work. But maybe it will get you a spot on the President's Economic Team. At least until the Cultural Revolution begins . . . .

  2. For some amazingly damning (and humorous, in a dark way) Krugman quotes from 2001-2002, in which he advocates creation of the housing bubble he now blames on Wall Street,go here:

  3. The first stimulus was a wash - cobbled together hastily and larded with pork. I think the call for a second stimulus is actually a call for a first one, only this time done right.

  4. Actually, the first stimulus, as described by Mr. Beast, has been the archetype for the legislation following it: slapped together in haste and panic, unread by those who are expected to approve it, constantly changing until the moment it's forced from its authors' hands, with the true degree of its porkliness unknowable until weeks or months after it's been granted the equally blind Presidential seal of approval.

    They only promised greater levels of transparency; they never said they wouldn't be transparently corrupt.

  5. I may not be an Ivy League educated economist, but what I can't figure out is, if printing money, er, uh, stimulus (yeah, that's it) is such a wonderful magic economic elixir, then why have we outlawed counterfeiting and keep working at our jobs?

    To take the Krugman-Keynesian-Leviathan myth to its conclusion, if each of us simply owned a decent printer, there'd be no need to work and we'd all be rich. Utopia!

  6. Hello stacy, you have become a fav for me! Is Mrs. Suderman playing Keynesian concern-troll or is she an actual Keynesian tool?