Posted by
rycK on Friday, February 13, 2009 5:20:29 PM
Krugman of the NYT Complains about a ‘Failure to Rise.’ We Should Spend More
and Nationalize the Banks.
The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty
Papers
has an all-encompassing and circuitous track record of apologizing for any form
of big government as long as it involves huge spending and high taxes. Today, the
Times’
famous noneconomics economist Paul Krugman grinds
away with some bizarre mental notions about a ‘Failure
to Rise.’ If this is a blurred sexual innuendo then it has succeeded, at least
in my case. Let us enjoy his strange theories on economics and government.
I
have included an executive abstract of this blog that condenses the facts and
themes.
Abstract of this blog: Paul Krugman continues to honor and
sustain his monotonous and tautological socialist puppet image as a false
economic prophet and now tells us that government spending must make up the
coming deficit in the GDP. This nostrum,
straight out of Moscow Central Planning or other such Marxian think tank
follies, supplies us with the facts to declare Krugman an economic counterfeit
or, perhaps, merely a garden-variety, simple-minded Marxist. There is no lucid
discussion of debt in any of Krugman’s recent rants as to how we can handle
massive debt or the looming inflation we will get from printing money. The only position he defends is that tax cuts
are never an option. He advises us to ignore the deficits for a few years. Krugman
hopes to nationalize, temporarily[?], the banks so as to do something with
toxic assets produced by leftist social programs that gave mortgages to people
with lousy credit and illegal aliens.
In today’s exciting episode Times’ igNoble Leechette starts with this:
“…stimulus package was a great victory for
President Obama…. Break out the Champagne!.. Or maybe not. [What?? Ed.] …These aren’t normal
times, so normal political standards don’t apply: Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat. The stimulus bill looks helpful but inadequate, especially when
combined with a disappointing plan for rescuing the banks. And the politics of
the stimulus fight have made nonsense of Mr. Obama’s postpartisan dreams.”-- Failure to Rise by Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist
[Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
This can only mean that this budget-busting
monstrosity is not big enough in the eyes of people like Krugman. Like sex and drugs for
many liberals, there is never enough. Krugman’s postpartisan dreams are wet, at best.
To hear his own head rattle to the
thesis of the The
Internationale (L'Internationale in French) our
krugmaniacal econowizard
dons a grass skirt and then throws the old moldy bones on the drum and regurgitates his
hackneyed analysis against tax cuts, which spurred on our economy for JFK,
Ronald Reagan and George Bush:
“…In both the House
and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that
the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration’s tax
cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts.”
One reason for this imperceptive view is that massive spending has
trashed our economy with too much debt, from which we may not convalesce, and
in a debt-driven depression-induced deflationary spiral this can only make
things mediocre at best. This stimulus only encourages the size of government
and does not address job creation. Government jobs are not really
jobs—they are inefficient and only contribute to costs. They are anti-jobs akin to antimatter. In the mode of disintegration when antimatter
meets matter, government jobs destroy society. Government employees, apart from
the military and bare essentials are merely parasites. Tax cuts along with
spending cuts would give us both prosperity and a balanced budget.
As for tax cuts, Obama could have cut FICA and FICM and/or some other
withholding taxes and transferred money from Treasury to temporally cover the
shortfall. Growth in the economy and
increases in tax revenues would have paid that back. That tax maneuver would
have instantly injected money into the population of workers. Cutting corporate
taxes would have encouraged business to expand, take some risks and hire more
people. No. They opt for failure when
they had a chance to save the economy. Now, we head for a debt-driven depression. Nobody
will dare loan money to people with phony government jobs. They will lose them
in a few years. Watch California and New York.
“For while Mr. Obama got
more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn’t ask for enough.
We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The
Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a
$2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will
actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like
a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.”
This hyperignorant statement shows us exactly what Krugman is and why he is not: an economist. He just affirmed that the
‘gap’ in gross economic production should be made up by government spending.
This sounds like Sweden and France, both heading to a good long dive into the latrines as we write.
Krugman can only
endorse government spending as the source of maintaining
the GDP. Well, the USSR had essentially 100 % government spending for 74 years. How did
that turn out? Their command economy is crashing again as this is written.
Their ruble is so much toilet paper now.
Krugman now solidifies
his position as a Marxist [or a simple stooge thereof] as he pronounces Little Timmy
Geithner’s phony debt plan as ‘vague’ and then calls for nationalization of the
banks:
“The plan sketched out by
Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wasn’t bad, exactly. What it was,
instead, was vague. It left everyone
trying to figure out where the administration was really going. Will those
public-private partnerships end up being a covert way to bail out bankers at taxpayers’ expense? Or will the required
“stress test” act as a back-door route to temporary bank nationalization (the
solution favored by a growing number of economists, myself included)? Nobody
knows.”
Tim’s plan was vague as he has no notion of how
to sell the toxic debt. The bankers are stuck with toxic debts from giving
mortgages to losers, mostly Democrats, inner-city Main Street types and illegal aliens.
A temporary bank nationalization is
like a temporary case of AIDs.
“And I don’t know
about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach — a feeling
that America just isn’t rising to
the greatest economic challenge in 70 years.”
This phallic allusion is sickening as it tends to equate failure with promiscuous sex,
probably drugs and other leftist grand accomplishments. The greatest economic
challenge will be to recover from massive inflation caused from printing money,
a process endorsed by leftists called ‘quantitative easing.’ O’Bozo will become
the very essence of failure on this planet.
So, we have two years of massive debt and massive spending on line
before a House majority could stop the spending and reverse some of this
wreckage. Looking into the future, we
know that such government spending cannot end with this mere 800 bln spending
spree. Krugman just alerted us that we are about 2 bln short. Plan to avoid taxes, watch your spending and start
learning how to cope with first deflation then massive inflation. The massive
debt and irresponsible spending will drive the deflationary spiral at full speed
down and we will lose a million jobs a month. If we cannot hold this government
spending to a certain level within 2-3 years then we will become a third world dung heap or some Anexo al Norte de México. Viva Zapata Cavrones!!
Massive debt will bury us. Get ready to get into a bunker
mentality.
Maybe the UN will give O’Bozo the Robert Mugabe Prize for wealth
redistribution.
rycK
Comments
to: ryckki@gmail.com