Krugman of the NYT Confuses Wealth Transfers with Job Creation and Calls for Higher Taxes or More Spending

Abstract: Krugman tediously advocates more and more spending and bigger and bigger government with higher and higher taxes for all known government problems. There is nothing else of interest in this current blurb from the New York Times. The old stale leftist clichés are artfully twisted into a circular argument that is unassailable. This is the same old Tax and Spend song with new notes in a place or two. Our economy will probably collapse.

Today, we are treated to an amusing circular essay on jobs and non jobs and phony jobs and government jobs and the quest for more money to create jobs by an inefficient and costly wealth transfer process. The notion of tax cuts, the process that brought us up from the Jimmy Carter Malaise, is belligerently absent here. We need to spend more! The mumbos and jumbos of government job creation are neatly explained by the teachings and guiding counsel of one Paul Krugman[1][2][3][4] of the New York Times--known affectionately as the Walter Duranty Papers[5] in honor of their Pulitzer Prize winner whose portrait proudly hangs on the wall in New York City to inspire all leftist journalists. The theme is that although jobs were promised they didn’t materialize so the only solutions are, as usual, more taxes and more government spending.

Getting up to date:

“If you’re looking for a job right now, your prospects are terrible.”[6] --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

This comment seems to present evidence that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the Stimulus Package or the pedestrian notion of redistribution of wealth[7]—aka Stimulus [or porkulus] has failed to stimulate the job markets. We were promised better by President Obama. What happened? It seems Obama promised “…to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.”[8]Then we observed some strange accounting gimmicks from recovery.gov that purported to list where the new jobs came from and we find that the government paid out $92,000 per new job.[9]  Many of these jobs were ‘created’ in nonexistent congressional districts? We are thus informed of those facts on the government website recovery.gov. This is a great way to create new jobs: just print money and spread it all around.

Hindsight reconstruction of the need to spend more:

To be fair Krugman was originally in favor of more spending than the mere .787 trillion dollar outlay—the biggest in the history of the know world--and what that insufficient stimulus would be doing would ”... provide only 600 bln in a 2 trillion dollar hole.” He got that right.

On the question of double digit unemployment he comments: “It would peak out to 9%.” [10]  But to be more fair, there is no discussion I could find where Krugman tells us how we handle such massive debt and what it might do to the economy. Spending is just a one note of a two note song for Paul Krugman. Spending rings properly and delightfully in the leftist economic ear in all keys and octaves. He was all for nationalizing at least some banks in Feb 2009: “Why not just go ahead and nationalize? Remember, the longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis.”[11] Krugman argued in that reference that government support to the banks to rescue them from their zombie status: “To end their zombiehood the banks need more capital. But they can’t raise more capital from private investors. So the government has to supply the necessary funds.” What permeates this circular essay is that Krugman fears that the stockholders [dreaded capitalists] might get some unearned profits or other benefits here. This is just printing money.  As an aside, all our banks are zombies now.

Humming right along…..

“You might think, then, that doing something about the employment situation would be a top policy priority. …. There’s a pervasive sense in Washington that nothing more can or should be done, that we should just wait for the economic recovery to trickle down to workers.” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Can we ignore the other stimuli that failed to do much and wasted money as in the cases where we spent $92,000 per job![12] And, then,  we spent $24,000 per car on the Clunker Follies and a mere $43,000 per house on the housing scam. [13] Now, that is ‘serious’ by liberal standards. We are stunned and mortified that these measures failed. This is how liberal Democrats think:--they avoid direct job creation with tax cuts and stimulation to small businesses by printing money to redistribute the wealth[14] and are surprised that this doesn’t work. That becomes the excuse to spend more!

This essay goes nowhere as Krugman will never acknowledge that small business with appropriate tax cuts and fewer government regulations can create real 70% of the desperately needed jobs—not the phony ones we read about every day. So, he is partially correct but heard in a different pitch that there is no priority in job creation if we have cut taxes and offer profits to capitalists. Thus, our economy is collapsing from massive debt and the bubble machine[15] will make more noises in the near future.

The hopelessness drones on:

“The Federal Reserve, for example, expects unemployment, currently 10.2 percent, to stay above 8 percent — a number that would have been considered disastrous not long ago — until sometime in 2012….So it’s time for an emergency jobs program.” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

We anxiously wait for the crescendo and the economic solution!

“So our best hope now is for a somewhat cheaper program that generates more jobs for the buck. Such a program should shy away from measures, like general tax cuts, that at best lead only indirectly to job creation, with many possible disconnects along the way. ” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

The ‘Tax Cut Zombies[16] [17] are thus detuned and thrown out of the band![18]

“One such measure would be another round of aid to beleaguered state and local governments, which have seen their tax receipts plunge and which, unlike the federal government, can’t borrow to cover a temporary shortfall. ” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Translated as: “Let’s bail our California[19][20][21]!”

“Meanwhile, the federal government could provide jobs by ... providing jobs. It’s time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, one that would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment.” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Gather the chorus: “The government should be the employer of last resort!!”

First, let us peek deep down into a bottle of J&B Scotch to view the proper role of government:

“Last week Lyndon Johnson surprisingly came out hard for making the U.S. Government the employer of last resort for the "half million hard-core unemployed in our principal cities." In his television interview, he declared: "I am going to call in the businessmen of America and say one of two things has to happen: you have to help me go out and find jobs for these people, or we are going to find jobs in the Government for them. I think it will have to be done, as expensive as it is."[22]— Friday, Dec. 29, 1967 when LBJ was quoted in the Nation: Employer of Last Resort [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

What a way to keep more voters happy![23] How about jobs for illegal aliens too?

“Finally, we can offer businesses direct incentives for employment. It’s probably too late for a job-conserving program, like the highly successful subsidy Germany offered to employers who maintained their work forces. But employers could be encouraged to add workers as the economy expands.” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Here Krugman refers to the phony German Kurzarbeitergeld [24]that pays workers for not working.[25] In our society that is termed a ‘government’ job.

Here is another thought:

“"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."[26]—Margaret Thatcher

The echo from the brass section:

“All of this would cost money, probably several hundred billion dollars, and raise the budget deficit in the short run. But this has to be weighed against the high cost of inaction in the face of a social and economic emergency” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Honking aloud in B-Flat and wheezing in C# over undefined deficits and costs with no firm numbers? Short term?? “High Cost”?? “Incentives to business?”

“Later this week, President Obama will hold a “jobs summit.” Most of the people I talk to are cynical about the event, and expect the administration to offer no more than symbolic gestures. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Yes, we can create more jobs — and yes, we should.” --The Jobs Imperative Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist

Symbolic gestures like the words ‘stimulus?’ I an cynical about that too.

Predictably, Krugman offers nothing else other than tax and spend and never a tax cut to create real jobs in the private sector. Toot1 for new taxes and then a blast off a hearty Toot2 for more spending or reverse theme for retoots.[27] Let us re-sing the songs of depression.

Liberalism never changes.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Global Warming Debates, Conduct of Scientists and Some Pointed Questions:

Abstract: “Scientists’ have performed poorly in their core duties and have collected in little political claques that appear to exist to deflect criticism and have also suppressed or erased data, but have strangely retained the respect of the UN who dearly want to get some money from Cap and Trade fees and care not a whit if the science is real or phony. It is strange that much of this ‘science’ seems to coincide with Al Gore’s business adventures[1] in Cap and Trade. Critics of Global Warming—now downgraded to ‘Climate Change’ as the errant computer models ungraciously gave the wrong signal, have been marginalized, abused and their papers rejected.  The damming e-mails, presumable protected by law under FOIA legislation in two countries have been diligently deleted. The raw data, presumably free of political massages of various sorts have been deleted[2] and are expediently absent for subsequent analysis. If you put money on the drum some ‘scientists’ will dance to any tune you select.

We open this essay with a statement of faith that properly ranks with palm readers, bingo addicts and certain Methodists. Apparently, the IPCC has ‘settled’ the matter of Global Warming at least in their minds.

“"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.”[3]-- Gibbs: Despite research dispute, 'climate change is happening' By Tony Romm Whitehouse 1 Dec 2009.

This must give us all complete confidence. But, there is more:

True Belief:

“There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.”[4]-- Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman Rajendra Pachauri

Translated, the means that if the projections are phony [or no]t we still accept the findings and want the money. Are we, or not, involved in some anthropogenic contamination of our planet that leads to global warming? Perhaps it does not matter to the UN and other parasites. We can at least wonder about some of the ‘science’ in this matter [even thought it is ‘happening’] because of the following questions points, comments and more:

[1] The matter has been deemed ‘settled by some politician [Al Gore][5] who is corrupt and has solicited or accepted bribes[6] in the past and is considered a ‘climate pirate.’[7]

Details on the settled science:

“"This isn't a scientific paper, it's absolutely awful," said Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK”[8]—e-mail by Phil Jones directed at critic Professor Legates of University of Delaware. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Any paper that questions or contradicts what is ‘accepted’ by a cabal is apparently  not science and is considered absolutely awful we read.

“In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”[9].

Hiding something?

Suppression of evidence:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”[10]

"I can't see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"—Phil Jones

[2] Critics of GW have been smeared[11] and their work ignored and papers canned by ‘peer review’ committees who filter the negative evidence.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

This is science?

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”[12]

Why not silence the opposition so we can say that we are unanimous!

[3] The computer models and such have been ‘predicting’ that that the earth’s temperature is increasing and now, against their political wishes, the earth has treacherously defied political correctness and she lowers her temperature.

“Opponents of the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill would do well to invoke recent scientific studies that show global surface temperatures have not increased since 1998, contrary to what climate models have predicted.”[13]-- Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism By: Kevin Mooney

[4] Data has been deliberately erased and only the massaged versions apparently remain.

The original data set has been deleted.

[5] Those at East Anglia have chosen to delete e-mails and other data and communication in defiance of England’s FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] and encouraged others to do so.

This is probably a felony.

These are the kind of people we have in our government and world ‘government’ as the UN is sometimes alluded to in public  and in ‘science’ where they spend billions of dollars that are apparently politically oriented. Even ardent supporters like George Monbiot at the Guardian have called for his resignation.[14]

This is a disgrace and yet they still have a chance to divert a trillion dollars worth of taxes into the hands of many people probably for nothing.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com