«

»

Krugman Chugs Keynsian Kool-Aid

Yesterday, we joked on Twitter that Krugman would say that the earthquake wasn’t “big enough”. Sure enough, someone put up a fake Paul Krugman profile on Google+ making that argument. Krugman has distanced himself from the idea (although a number of his followers agreed with the comment). But let’s remember who we’re dealing with. Here is Krugman on September 14, 2001 arguing that 9/11 would simulate the economy, especially by eroding resistance to counter-cyclical spending. He has previously argued that World War II brought us out of the Depression (because rationing is prosperity and a massive draft creates full employment) and, as Alex noted, he made a comment about the stimulus of an alien invasion.

Really, the remarkable thing here is that he didn’t praise the earthquake for its potential stimulating effect. The broken window is classic Keynesianism. Why run away from it now?

Update: Krugman’s defense is that World War II was still simulative but that the only reason natural disasters are not is because our disaster relief spending is too small.

Seriously.

5 comments

No ping yet

  1. Seattle Outcast says:

    What always bothered me about the broken window fallacy is that it’s so blindingly obvious to pick apart as being total bullshit. Therefore, anyone that supports it is either 1) horribly stupid 2) lying 3) brainwashed. Since even a child can see though it, I’m going with lying and brainwashed for the majority of “progressives” and other assorted libtards.

    There really isn’t anything to be done to explain the truth to those that continue to shove it out there. They are either too stupid to understand, don’t give a shit, or require their entire worldview to be completely shattered so that reality can take hold.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    Krugman isn’ the only one embarassed today:

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/seismic-monitoring-new-madrid-john-mccain-earmarks

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Dick Fitzwell says:

    The neo-Keynesian argument is unfalsifiable and will continue to be even after the country has gone completely bankrupt. When that happens their argument will move from “we didn’t spend enough” to something else. I’m just not sure what the new justification will be but I’m betting it will have something to do with “sabotage by the Republicans.”

    They are never wrong and the things that are wrong with the economy are never their fault. Just once I would like to hear one of them say, “We spent too much money.” I won’t hold my breath.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    You know, I was thinking about this just this AM Hal. I was wondering how long it would be for someone in the Obama Admin or affiliated with it to make the idiotic claim that this earthquake was a great job maker opportunity. Some serious stimulus.

    I dismissed writing about it prefering to wait it out. The sad thing is that if I had read the spoof on Krugman, I would have totally believed he did it, because this is the nonsense I expect from people that believe the nonsense he does and travel in his circles.

    Don’t worry. I bet someone legit will sooner or later find a way to make the claim that the earthquake and government’s repsonse to it was good for the economy. Maybe after the hurricane goes through and they combine it all and balme it on Gaia’s furry too.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. AlexInCT says:

    When you believe all you need to do is shake down the productive, them evil/non-deserving rich people, because the money is after all already all yours or because you belief in some insane concept of social justice that allows you to justify it shouldn’t be theirs anyway, then you never are going to feel you are spending too much. Especially when you throw in some good old fasioned emotionalism and claim it is for the poor, sick, lame, children, or progressive whatever.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.

View Mobile Site