Abstract: Krugman plays the uncertainty game with the effects of the stimulus that has, as yet, failed to stimulate anything but the egos of the leftist Democrats. The goal here is to squeeze as much money out of the taxpayer as possible, make excuses for the misadventures, and then regrub for endless tax increases using fear and bullying.  They only non debatable option here is stimulating the job market by cutting taxes for small corporations. Tax cuts always ‘cost too much’ and are ineffective in stimulating the economy despite the successes of JFK, LBJ and RWR. Qualified economics experts, like House Chief Economist Christiana Romer who disagreed and predicted an economic turnaround by the end of July, and also Warren Buffett who predicts massive inflation as a solution to our federal debt are ignored in this propaganda piece. This is a classic example of leftist propaganda from a master in the art.

Tax whoring, the only profession that allows the far left the privilege of having enough money enough to eat and affording some modern conveniences like a warm place to take a good dump, is more an art than a science. The quest for other people’s money [OPM] is a parasitic adventure similar to leprosy only heightened in enormity, adorned with pretty speeches and song and based on simple slogans that attract the attention of a simple mind.[1] Thus to survive, the left must pander and slither through the mystical alleyways for platitudes that encourage losers to endorse their phony economic programs. It isn’t enough that we watched the USSR for 74 years play this silly game which resulted in the complete collapse of the brightest leftist empire the world has even seen. It was not enough to see much of Marxian Asia dump these policies after brief tests that showed that liberalism’s views on socialism are a failure.

So, we are treated to another plug for more loot by our wonderful  Dr. Krugman of the Walter Duranty Papers: [2]  In the spirit of an academic inspection of this work let us look for the usual slogans and propaganda elements required to generate such a preposterous notion that we need another failing stimulus and see what kind of score we can give the good doctor:

 We begin:

“O.K., Thursday’s jobs report settles it. We’re going to need a bigger stimulus. But does the president know that?

Let’s do the math.”[3]-- That ’30s Show By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: July 2, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes unless specifically indicated as in the original.]

I thought we were in recovery and ready to celebrate Obama’s wise economic program?? Yes, by all means. We would like to hear how Obama was able to save 3 million jobs with the first round of stimuli and how successful that measure turned out to be so we can be pleased that we can save another 3 million and maybe more with some liberal economic efficiency. [Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?]

“Since the recession began, the U.S. economy has lost 6 ½ million jobs … Once you take into account the 100,000-plus new jobs that we need each … we’re about 8 ½ million jobs in the hole.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

I seem to remember, recently, asking what the first stimulus—not to mention the 1.8 trillion dollar deficit in the Obama budget—has done to reduce job loses. Didn’t I ask that?? Maybe we can find it later in this article:

“So what do we have to counter this scary prospect? We have the Obama stimulus plan, which aims to create 3 ½ million jobs by late next year.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

This video sums up the grim facts that Obama promises failed and we lost 1 million more jobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c

Apparently we lost 1 million more jobs than if we had done nothing at all given the Obama numbers. Now, that is liberalism at its finest. [Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?]

Now, I wonder where this “late next year” stipulation came from. Did Obama, this Feb, tell us that the 3 million jobs would be saved by late in 2010???

Off topic and revisionist:

“All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s. Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren’t aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

This constant whine is also depressingly familiar and consistent with the NYT and their articles that call for massive tax hikes for any old occasion since the 1930s. [Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?]

But, now, we have the excuse [mentioned by Obama when he brayed and honked for a quickie stimulus??] that the states now sandbagged his program? Oh, can we blame California, New Jersey, Maryland and other states now teetering on the rusty edge of default for truncating the wonderful Obama Plan?? Gee, why didn’t Obama just mention this as a stipulation in Feb 2009 and then poop up the stimulus to, say, a few odd trillion? He can still save California with the printing press.

Well Obama did predict this:

“"None of this will be easy," he said.” The road to recovery will not be straight. We will make progress, and there may be some slippage along the way."”[4]—AP President Obama Feb. 17, 2009

Okay, we can consider this to be some ‘slippage’ that happened “along the way” to the poor house. So, Krugman is technically correct when he places a firm date on political mush. That is good economics, or, to be fair, a good example of how they operate.

More taxes!! More spending!! Print more money!!

“What I don’t know is whether the administration has faced up to the inadequacy of what it has done so far.

So here’s my message to the president: You need to get both your economic team and your political people working on additional stimulus, now. Because if you don’t, you’ll soon be facing your own personal 1937.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

A prediction from Krugman from Feb 17, 2009:

“The $787 billion stimulus is not nearly enough to fill the "well over $2 trillion hole" in the economy, Krugman said. "A fair bit of the bill is not really stimulus," he adding, noting that just about $650 billion would actually spur consumer spending and other types of stimulus.”[5]-- Paul Krugman: Stimulus Too Small, Second Package Likely (VIDEO)

Fair enough. Krugman is consistent. So, can we blame Obama for NOT following Krugman’s obvious advice as PK did predict that this wouldn’t work?  Can we forgive Krugman for criticizing the stimulus and revealing the facts that much of it is not stimulus? Probably not.

What we have here is the same form of logic and theater that we find in the phony Global Warming Follies: We must do something to avoid a disaster and if that something is the wrong recipe for success then we just haven’t spent enough money on that wrong recipe. The threat that the Great Depression will gobble up our financial resources before the oceans boil from CO2 pollution is part of the same problem: we haven’t spent enough money on projects that don’t seem to be sound or are just plain phony so let’s spend some more! The importance here is not any solution to any problems, social or financial—the objective is just spending and taxation and bigger government.

Missing from the Krugman essays today is the absence of any way to pay back the debt. He does mention inflation in the same sentence with deflation thus nullifying the prospect that our currency may collapse from too much printing press excitement and a world-wide boycott of the dollar. Even Warren Buffett predicts massive inflation.[6]

Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?

This is a well-constructed propaganda piece[7][8][9][10] that focuses in on the finality and absolutism of big government at all costs. This is typical of the left and their nostrums of governance. This piece points out a legitimate danger to our economy, ignores several alternatives to mere mindless taxation, debt and wanton printing of money.  An accepted remedy in the guise of a stimulus was the correct idea but was not sufficient in magnitude to be successful. The objective was to build government at any cost. More printing of money, higher taxes and bigger spending are thus indicated given the lack of progress noted since Feb 2009. Salient facts about debt, deflation, inflation[11] and the impact of such debt on other generations are confidently omitted here.

We are saddened to report a conflicting message that White House Chief Economist Christiana Romer had endorsed the Obama Plan and predicted:

“Romer stated, “We have put in place the biggest, boldest recovery package in history....incredible medicine for economy, and we fully expect it to work.” She maintained that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound[12] and continues to expect a turnaround in the second half of the year. “We have our eyes on the fundamentals....the day-to-day ups and downs of the stock market are a bad way to judge policy,” she said, voicing one of the Obama administration’s mantras.”[13]-- White House Chief Economist Christina Romer Mar 15, 2009.

But, she has no Nobel Prize.

This is a fine and well-crafted propaganda piece.  It ignites the fires of fear and frustration among the unwashed and mentally disnimble, conceals the obvious caveats and pitfalls of the present course, obfuscates the notion that a financial recovery is really important to leftists and denigrates the Republicans. It also ignores the predictions from many leftist quarters that this thing would work by July end, just a few days away.  The views of experts like Romer and Buffett are omitted as they contribute only unhandy truth to this piece. .

We should salute Paul Krugman for another fine example of how to construct a proper propaganda piece and thank him for the instruction. He will change his views about economics about the same time Katie Couric decides to wash her hair or when Whoopie Goldberg peroxides her mouth. The liberals are firmly committed to disaster and we can watch Krugman calmly blame Bush for everything that happens even if it takes two or three decades more.  But, to be fair, they couldn’t succeed in capitalism anyway so what the heck.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

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