Krugman Offers a World-Wide Trade War as He Argues for Cap and Trade.

 Abstract: Krugman bounces off the economic wall again and disagrees with his master and benefactor over the key issue of tariffs on those who refuse either to believer in EcoNazism or to participate in this folly. He ignores the union dues Obama has to pay and trades that nonsense for a fat  tax hike.  The US takes on the War on CO2 with only some Euro-Peon allies and our economy crashes in inflation and inefficiency. China and India ignore the EcoNazi follies and refuse to tax carbon or buy goods that have such a burden or tax. Taxes soar and the stock market tanks some more. Our government expands, capitalism is blamed and we embrace socialism. This is a liberal dream.

The idea that economics is all about economics is so preposterous, given the incoherent blather and flat slogans that soar among the clouds in great abundance, that  we must laugh. Secondly, we must then acknowledge the salient fact that this recurring parade of nostrums on economic views, theory and predictions somehow seem to blossom and spring to life after they have some instant political backing. It is as if government, an unconnical ensemble of incompetents all groping for money and power, comprised mostly of bribees and other parasites, would even consider the best economic course for a given country.  There is no glory or worth endorsing the wishes of the opposition even if those might be a reincarnation of the sainted FDR, our esteemed Anglo Scott brother Gordon Brown, soon to be dumped in the U.K. for trashing their economy,  and then the sorry case of Peanut Jimmy Carter are but a few examples of how to use politics to wreck an economy. Obama may set new records for destroying the world’s economy if he gets the chance. The voters are stupid enough to allow that for a change even if it means poverty for all. I think his objective is the destruction of the US economy using a blend of radical racism and Marxism. We shall see. His kind cannot, as we have seen for centuries, make progress under capitalism.

But, when the political winds blow a certain way, the compliant stooges straight away mount their soap boxes and now find theories, dance and song to support whatever their masters might need to bolster up the new thoughts.

Then, we get to the strange case of Dr. Krugman of the Walter Duranty Papers [1]  and his stubborn tactic of reversing himself on matters of taxes and deficits[2] and now, suddenly,  of obstructing the current views of his Lord and Master:

“President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an “extraordinary first step,” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution.”[3]--The conscience of a liberal by Paul Krugman, New York Times July 1, 2009. 2009   [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

It appears that Mr. Nobel Laureatte hisself has written a book that dumps on the Smoot Hawley Tariffs, often blamed for the Great Depression. Others [a blogger], [4] among many, picked up on this view as he suddenly becomes in favor of a tariff:

This is worth thinking about:

Kbh asks: “What tools should we use to try to convince the government of China to impose a positive carbon price as part of a global effort?  (choose one or more)”

“[1] Leadership:  U.S. goes first and self-imposes a price.  Then we use diplomacy to try to convince the Chinese to do the same.”

“[2] Carrots:  The U.S. pays the Chinese to reduce their emissions.”

“[3] Sticks:  The U.S. imposes import tariffs on Chinese goods as long as the government China does not impose a carbon price.”  --The Smoot-Krugman carbon import tariff

Posted on May 29th, 2009 by kbh in climate, energy, featured, int'l 

Yes, nice options. The blogger kbh admits that “Given this uncertainty, I believe there is a small but non-trivial risk that there will be severe climate change over the next century or two.”

But, kbh correctly emphasizes the very essence of the Krugman thought process:

“As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.”—Paul Krugman.

We can presume that moral empowerment allows lies, phony science, sleaze and outright fraud for political reasons. This makes sense in the Party of Democrats. There are dozens of good posts on this very theme and some even come from Tibet and China and from places where I cannot identify the language.

I think that it is clear that union-demanded protectionism is at the center of the Obama statement and that Krugman ignores this important political point. Krugman, in contrast, is tenured and not subject to the incoherent variances in voter’s habits and responses to bad news.

Analysis:

Krugman and Obama are thinking with different sets of data. Both must juggle science, politics and economics and neither is that competent in things other than politics. Both are correct in their decisions if confined to their narrow isolated spheres, but both, in my view, ignore the stark scientific and economic facts and Krugman invariably waffles off to the far left on the economics.  He can see nothing but high taxes and socialism. Krugman is now, after observing his waffling, a superstar similar to some re-embodiment of Pee Wee Herman[5] as he puts out his little thingy for fun and applause, dances for  a while in the spotlight and puts it back. Obama is a radical Marxist ideological racist[6] so it matters not whether he believes in either the economics or science or anything else. He is a stooge plugged into some teleprompter to modulate his stuttering and mental escapades. Here is what I think:

[a] There is no global warming attributed to CO₂. 21,000 scientists attested to this. [7] The idea is so much crap. It is totally political in nature and as such is a Lysenko-style political farce[8] led by a bribe taker, flunky, Marxist and EcoNazi. The whole point is taxation.

[b] There is abundant evidence of China and others violating WTO ‘rules’ for decades [such as Japan and France] where the ‘buy local’ mantras are sung constantly in low tones while shouting free trade slogans. There is no evidence of free trade in the world and we all know that. France says buy France when they talk about subsidizing their cars. The Germans do the same. The US cannot for some reason, mostly union oriented. The Asians will not tax energy for business reasons.

[c] India has just announced that it will NOT take on carbon limits, period.[9] China only mumbles.

[d] Europe has bought into the Green Weenie[10] ‘science’ and embraces carbon caps like a hooker embraces the nearest john. England’s Parliament recently voted[11] to ruin their economy with carbon caps and taxes. They flipped into the game.

[e] Even if Global Warming is not a farce, the absence of half the world’s industrial production’s participation in this circus ensures that CO₂ levels will not decreases at least based on smokestack and auto emissions. What the US does is not important then.  They win in the mercantile arena and we lose.

The prize is clear here for the three major players: China, India and the Liberals: If the US excessively taxes energy she will be less competitive in world trade thus favoring China and India and parts of Europe. IF we prop the GDP up with higher energy costs and phony green jobs the consumer will buy more cheaply overseas. The US unemployment will soar, social unrest will emerge and the economy will contract and these maladies can be blamed on the idiot Bush so the liberals win in the short run.  The voters might be persuaded that ‘more change is needed’ and vote out some more Republicans. Wild spending and printing money will eventually devalue the US currency except that the fed is frantically buying up the debt by monetizing the debt[12] and bolstering the dollar. That will hold for a while. The low velocity of money keeps inflation in check for the short term and keeps the GDP pumped up with phony dollars. This gives time for the foreign creditors to shift their reserves from dollars to other currencies like the yuan or euro or gold or even commodities as China is doing.  Krugman, on the side of the liberals gets his tax increases. US citizens get the shaft and the liberals blame Bush for everything.

Everybody wins here except US business owners and employees and the few taxpayers we have left. We can choose both [1] and [2] from blogger  kbh where we burden ourselves, wreck our economy and then bribe the Chinese to pretend to do the same in the old diplomatic way we solved the nuclear problems in North Korea. The US will not put into force option [3].  India gets a great expansion and captures many of our old customers.

So, we tax energy, drive up costs and inefficiency, drive our balance of trade deeper into the red direction, create fewer jobs, cheapen the dollar, raise taxes to the roof and wildly expand our government and bow to Islamo-Fascists and maggots like Hugo Chavez and apologize for ever confronting them.

This is the perfect liberal dream.

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com