Paul Krugman for now has left his “We need more spending, not austerity” theme in order to push his “We need more government spending so that businesses will spend, too” mantra. (It’s always about the spending.) In a couple of posts, I have contrasted Krugman’s “spending” theme with “regime uncertainty” that our own Robert Higgs has been emphasizing.
My links here and here deal with the concept of “regime uncertainty” and how it contrasts with Krugman’s views, and then another post that deals with Krugman’s view that the Obama administration is doing just fine in its attempts to force businesses (and doctors) to adhere to its policies.
In the last post, I also highlight Skip Oliva’s recent comments on the U.S. Department of Justice and ObamaCare.
{ 28 comments }
I had a thought the other day about Krugman and his “camp.” The Keynesians sort of remind me of the left’s equivalent to Bush’s foreign policy thinkers. You have the same imperial hubris of “American is invincible! We can do anything we want! We are an empire now! We can create reality!”, only in this case it’s about spending and debt and economic stimulus. I even recall hearing some Keynesian blowhard saying that we needed “shock and awe” stimulus spending.
In both cases, there is a belief below the surface that America is exceptional, invincible, and that governments and other powerful institutions (central banks, etc.) can literally will reality into being. In the case of the Busheviks, it was the idea that we can will the world to democracy and remake entire societies. In the case of Obama’s Keynesians, it’s the idea that we can will the economy back to boom times regardless of malinvestments, demographic trends, emerging natural resource constraints (peak oil, etc.), or over-indebtedness.
Triumph of the will! All empires end in this sort of psychosis. It’s sort of a collective delusional/psychotic episode.
Found it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/american-recovery-and-rei_n_163437.html
(Rolls eyes…)
The idiocy of the Nobel Laureate for Wackonomcs – Paul Krugman – is recognized all over the world but apparently he only pays attention to the U.S. news media or perhaps only to the New York Times – or even more likely – only his own articles! The narcissism of the ego-driven!
I’m noticing a disturbing trend on this site – Obama exceptionalism.
There seems to be the idea that the poicies being followed by the Obama regime are fundamentally and philosophically different from the policies enacted under the Bush regime.
Really, there is no difference. In fact, much of Obama’s work in undoing liberty would be impossible were it not for Bush’s laying the groundwork.
Please can the contributors to this site use ‘Washington’, ‘The presidency’, or some other such term to denote the State which owns the American people and empire.
My reasoning for this is the peculiar fallacy that many people seem to suffer from, that if we only got ‘the right man’ or ‘our man’, or ‘a good man’ into the position of power, then everything would be alright. By naming and shaming Obama, rather than the institution of the presidency in general, we allow these people to continue thinking the state of the world is a result of a ‘bad man’, rather than a bad ideology.
I have some problems with this site, being a “recovering anarchoholic” myself, but “Obama exceptionalism” isn’t one of them. While your criticism may apply to many right wing talk radio shows out there today, I don’t think it applies here. Some radio hosts do indeed blame the current economy and the mess in the Middle East on Obama, as if Bush had nothing to do with them. But this site, if you haven’t figured it out yet, is comprised mostly of full-blown anarchists. For most of the people here, “our man” would be Mr. None-Of-The-Above. Or maybe, taking a cue from Monty Python, Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Election. (Nah, somebody would complain that the “Sir” part smacks too much of feudalism!)
Personally, I don’t have any problem with contributors targeting Obama, since I think he is the most pure example of fascism we have seen in the White House since…. well, since the White House was built.
Russ was an anarchist like Michael Bolton was a soul singer.
Institutions and ideas don’t act; by naming abstractions, we allow those individuals responsible to deflect some or all of the blame.
Colin,
Regarding those who post to this website’s blog (not the individuals who comment on the blog), nothing could be further from the truth.
Precisely his point. There is this illusion that Obama is somehow different. People are more concerned with political party than the actions taken. A Democrat can wage war, infringe on civil liberties, and drive up deficits and it will be a good thing to die-hard Democrats and horrible to a Repbulican. But just change the little letter after the politician’s name and do the exact same thing, the Democrat suddenly is crying foul and the Republican thinks it a grand idea. That’s easily the biggest hurdle the libertarian movement has to surmount.
J. Murray,
No, he wasn’t talking about the libertarian movement in general. He was talking about this website. He wrote,
Ah, I see it. Those nagging little grammar differences make a huge difference.
Ah, ok I see it too.
I didn’t mean to insult this site as part of the larger libertarian movement at all, sorry.
I suppose I was voicing a realisation about the way a choice of words affects my own thinking.
This site is an invaluable resource!
Tooo right Colin… it’s ideas and institutions that matter, not which particular empty suit is fronting for them at the mo. The same goes for the Rep/Dem puppet show.
Colin,
Of all possible sites, I think the folks who hang out here “get it” WAAAY more than the usual riffraff.
I take your point, but Obama is THE MAN of the moment, so naturally he’s the personification of the problem. For now.
Actually, when Bush was in office, this website went after his policies, too. This site is not an “anti-Obama” site any more than it was an “anti-Bush” site a few years ago. However, with Obama and the Democrats with huge majorities in the House and Senate, it seems that they are going to have to take credit — or blame — for what happens on their watch.
Silly Willy, the democrats won’t take the blame for anything: They’ll just pin it on the market instead.
I’m going to go ahead and say that, although most authors/contributors/bloggers on this site generally disdain politics and its dirty business, I’d imagine that most would agree that GWB’s economic policies (i.e., independent from the Fed’s policies) were far less radical and less harmful than Obama’s.
I’d also encourage these same authors/contributors/bloggers to take their case to the GOP and push the part in the right direction, rather than hang out in la-la land while the world passes you by.
There’s really no substitute for activism. Pens are great, but influencing political outcomes, especially in the short term, requires boots on the ground, votes, and well-conceived tactics.
Otherwise you’re lamentably removed and ineffectual.
Imagine John McCain had won. Imagine the same congressional makeup.
Given his desire to sell a plan to the House/Senate we would have got “McCain Care” which would almost certainly have looked extremely similar to Obama’s final plan (given it was Romney’s plan first). And because both Dems and Republicans worked on it there wouldn’t be the huge populist movement against Obama there is now because it’d be another incremental move in the wrong direction.
In many ways having Democrats out there longer helps. The “lesser of 2 evils” is commonly counterproductive in the long run.
Well, in that case you might as well wish for our currency to collapse, our society to unravel quickly, because I’ve got some news for you: in wishing for the worst to get the best, things could get pretty damn bad…. see: human history.
I’m not wishing for Democrats to win over Republicans. I’m just not going to publically push Republicans against Democrats on lesser of 2 evils grounds. There are some Republicans I’d support politically, but not most of them. This doesn’t mean if I were in a “lesser of 2 evils” district I’d vote for the Democrat (or not vote at all), but it does mean I’m not going to act enthusiastic or push candidates who are mostly for things I have a problem with.
Actually, I feel I should spell this out, because it’s quite important-
You’re being smug. Smugness is a bad characteristic in all facets of live, but even moreso in political matters.
You seem to take for granted that people will realize the errors of their ways, when in fact history suggests they are likely not to until things get so bad they’re bound to get better.
Every interested Austrian should actively be trying to influence local Republicans to adopt an anti-Fed message. This, in my opinion, is a must for positive change in our country.
A plague on both your houses!
William, we’re all in some way smug here if we are arguing for any position to the extent we believe it more than other positions. Saying that other people can’t see the error of their ways implies that you see the error of your ways, but others are for some reason just not as good, for example.
In reality I think it goes both ways. It depends. I think that if you look at recent history my argument that quicker changes promotes better corrections has some merit. Certainly, you could point to Nazi Germany, etc. to provide examples in the opposite direction.
I’m not entirely sure that we mutually agree on where we are at right now or soon will be and that is part of the reason for my argument. The way the debt looks we are in for very hard times ahead, even if magically had every Republican wanting to abolish the Fed. But in reality, we aren’t going to get that and both sides are just going to make the debt bigger for many years to come. We already can’t afford it.
I really think the United States is likely to break up within this century. Insofar as socialist policies promote a culture that leads to totalitarianism I worry a bit more on incremental changes in that direction in some ways more than quicker changes. The reason is that if the changes occur quickly, large amounts of people in some states are still there to reject it, and secession of liberty-minded states is more likely to succeed without significant violence.
Whoa, GWB less radical?! While they might not be directly comparable, GWB’s economic policies were as economically perilous as Obama’s are. Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Fannie and Freddie nationalizations were MASSIVE expenses that will make future economic policy choices tremendously more difficult. Let alone our inability to see the consequences of those actions as they are still unfolding…
cs, the argument would be (and I think this part is valid) that a Democrat in GWB’s place would have done many of the same exact things, but only… worse. Example: Obama hasn’t repealed the patriot act. Example, during the Medicare Part D debates Democrats made it pretty clear they wanted more than that. I seriously doubt we wouldn’t have gotten something akin to Homeland Security under Gore had he been president in 2001. And nationalizations of Fannie/Freddie were certainly bad, but Obama added GM/Chrysler/GMAC/etc. into that mix.
I’m a nonviolent, pacifist Voluntaryist. I renounce the unwanted, unaccepted status as “citizen,” which the constitution of no authority pretends to impose on me, something it cannot do without my consent. I am, however, a native American (viz., born in America) with great love for my country and fellow Americans. To the greatest extent possible within my limited abilities to resist the Man, I withhold all explicit and implicit support for the State in any of its regional guises (federal, state, local, etc.), for the State is impoverishing my fellow country men and women and killing many young Americans. I do, however, observe bemused and with considerable pity for those who are taken in, the lies and silly games politicians play in their insatiable quest for power and OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for other people’s money.).
IMHO, George Bush singularly spawned Barak Obama. Bush was such a lousy, dishonest president, what with his manufactured war and all the deaths it caused, that the poor, befuddled voters would have chosen any opposition candidate–even John Edwards, knowing what voters now know about that rascal–just to be rid of Bush and his ilk (viz., McCain). Obama received a ringing mandate to change–change the man in the oval office. That’s it, and that is all the majority of his mandate constituents from him.
As for Krugman, he is to economics what Bush and Obama are to governing–insipidly terrible. Yesterday (July 7th) Obama was on TV while at a factory in Kansas repeating for the umpteenth time the most ego-maniacal lie a politician ever concocted, to wit: “We will CREATE __________ (fill in the blank with any of the following jobs, green jobs, high-paying jobs, prosperity, peace in our time, more exports, etc., etc., etc.) The poor deluded fellow seems to believe he and his cabinet are equal to God with all of their “creating” power, and Keynesians wanna-be economists like Krugman encourage that delusion. Of course, the only thing Obama has “created” (viz., caused) with his Keynesian monetary and fiscal policies is pain and suffering, and the continuation of Bush’s two wars with his creative foreign policy.
The most creative thing anyone receiving a government paycheck can do is consume . See my year and a half old articles on Barak Almighty (here: http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/BARACK_ALMIGHTY.html) and on Krugman (here: http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/BARACK_ALMIGHTY.html)
Fiscal Stimulus. If allegedly damaging thrift, excessive to a fault, is compelling unemployment, then why aim for efficiency in how you spend the public addition to the supposed ‘shortfall’ within the private sector? Say’s Law, in explaining the theoretical impossibility of a General Glut and consequently of a relation between consumption and employment, simultaneously explained, by the very meaning of the term ‘General Glut,’ the impossibility of a need to slow down production and/or to destroy product, which Keynesians implicitly argue is needed to allow further production and employment if thrift disables the economy from buying its product (since they fail to understand that such is an intertemporal misallocation, in which thrift is impelling entrepreneurs to become more future-oriented due to the insolvency of investors of capital who invested in present-oriented production; they malinvested, or if consumption was too high, they malinvested by producing for the future with unwarrantably roundabout production. The Keynesians have no comprehension of economy when they attempt to refute Say’s Law and to theorise that employment arises from consumption and spending (which is patently incorrect else how did human labour being, seeing that it needed production to undergo any consumption ex viti termini, in that the taking of a berry from a tree is ‘production?’)
*or, if PRESENT consumption was too high
Comments on this entry are closed.