Krugman has been around for a very long time. He certainly seems to know what is right. Why doesn’t he run for office? If he’s so sure of his ideas, why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is?

In a perverse way, since we’re destined for collapse as both major parties are playing the same game with money and markets, why not usher it in faster with Krugman’s policies? I’m 40, so it’s not going to do me much good to stumble about for another 10-20 years only to have it collapse when I am reaching an age to do little about it. I say we write in Krugman for President, drink our poison, and hopefully can recover.

But back to the real world, it seems plainly obvious that economics has basic, immutable laws. Would we take a person, no matter what their academic pedigree, seriously if they tried to make gravitational pull a political talking point? “Gravity is greater because Bush is in office, so this makes transporting goods that much harder, and requires more energy to do so, and that’s costing us all! Gravitational constants weren’t constant (?) when Clinton was in office! Things were so good back then hauling companies PAID people for the privilege of hauling their goods.” You simply can’t take a thing a person says as useful when they are so partisan, and if they DO happen to say something you agree with, it seems to be an accident.

Paul Krugman is great on international trade. However, he’s horribly confused about all other economic applications.

#######
#######

©2007

Open Letter

To

New York Times Columnist

Paul Krugman

- – -

Universal Healthcare is Socialism/Communism

August 27, 2007

Dear Paul Krugman,

Re: “‘Health Care for All Kids’ Sounds Like
a Socialist Plot,” [Richmond Times-
Dispatch of August 27th]

Four paragraphs in, first sentence,
you explain:

“OK, in case you’re wondering, I haven’t
lost my mind, I’m drawing an analogy.”

Why did you stop analogizing, Paul?

Why stop at healthcare, after having used public
education as an example of how Americans have
already accepted universalism in educating their
children (“universalism” is socialists’/communists’
cloaking term for worldwide application of
socialism/communism, as is the term:
“progressivism”)?

Yes, Paul, universal healthcare is the (il)logical
next step, not different from providing universal
education: You opine, “But a child who doesn’t
receive adequate healthcare, like a child who
doesn’t receive an adequate education, doesn’t
have the same shot.”

If universal public education justifies universal
healthcare, then, soundly logically, don’t both
necessarily lead to justification of universal food
distribution to all children—to be fair, regarding
giving all children “the same shot”?

Rationally, Marxian universalists’ first concern
ought to be adequate – and fair – distribution
of what sustains children’s very existence,
nutritious food, then work to provide educational
and healthcare opportunities. Right, Paul?

These four words, TRAGEDY OF THE
COMMONS, explain why Social Security
Insurance, public education and public welfare
- and so much more of Marxian progressives’
socialism/communism/liberalism – have been
so damaging to American civilization.

Google “tragedy of the commons,” Paul, then
try and come to an understanding of why
you’re perfectly wrong about your premises
and conclusions—learn why America is in
steep moral/cultural/racial/political/lingual/
financial decline.

All socialism-/communism-infected democracies
in the West are being invaded by Third
World populations precisely because
socialism/communism INVITES freeloaders—
by shifting self-responsibility onto the commons.

Please inform your readers that free public
education and welfare benefits for U.S.-born
children of illegal women have been the GREAT
ATTRACTOR, and that “universal healthcare for
children” means, potentially, U.S. taxpayers
having to fund healthcare for the children of
about 3-billion poor parents worldwide, who
are hoping and scheming and working to seek
a better life in any white Western democracy
—most of them pursuing a better life in
America’s and Great Britain’s socialistic,
communistic TRAGIC-COMMONS.

Best Regards,

-Founders’ America

P.S.

It is a socialist/communist plot, Paul! And
you’re part of that conspiracy – either
knowingly or ignorantly so – as are the
New York Times, The Washington Post
and all other left-wing newspapers, magazines,
and electronic news media.

There are few aspects of American civilization
today that haven’t evolved from socialists’/
communists’ stealthy efforts over decades of their
revolutionary influence on American civilization
—in order to subdue meritorious Western/Christian
civilization for the socialistic/communistic “Greater
Good”; read my essay on the other side, “Marxism”;
and read the below excerpts from documents
captured by Western allies in Dusseldorf, Germany,
in 1919,
one of which reads as follows: “Communist Rules
for Revolution”—read those rules and compare
each one to the social/cultural/racial/sexual/
political/financial transformations of American
civilization during the past seven decades:

“Corrupt the young; get them away from religion.
Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial;
destroy their ruggedness.

“Get control of all means of publicity, there by,
1) get people’s minds off their government
by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy
books and plays and other trivialities. 2) Divide
the people’s faith in their natural leaders by
holding the latter up to contempt and ridicule.
3) Always preach true democracy, but seize
power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
4) By encouraging government extravagance,
destroy its credit, produce fear of inflation
with rising prices and general discontent.
5) Promote unnecessary strikes in vital
industries, encourage civil disorder and
foster a lenient and soft attitude on the
part of the government toward such disorders.
6) By specious argument, cause the
breakdown of the old moral virtue, honesty
and sobriety…

“Cause the registration of all fire arms on
some pretext with a view to confiscate them,
leaving the population helpless.”

#######
#######

Another great article Bill. If Krugpot deserves a Nobel prize you deserve two!
There is no logical thread to anything Krugpot writes – it is all “four legs good, two legs bad” Bush-bashing BS.
To try to account for the current economic situation without taking into account the actions of the Fed, or the actions of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, is assinine.
While to war has contributed at least $200 billion to the deficit, the major problem as I see it is that Bush has had to sign off on massive increases in boondoggle and pork-barrel spending projects to get the war funded.
Fed policy is largely responsible for the crisis in the financial industry, as it is for the drop in the dollar, and a large part of the increase in the price of oil (another part is the Pelosi-Reid Pandering Premium – the rest is simply supply and demand).

Krugman is completely one-dimensional. I see no evidence in his writing that he has any experience with dynamic, systemic or ecological modes of thought.

Which, as far as I can tell, is what economics is.

He owes his academic position, and his columnist gig, entirely to the fact that he’s a cheerleader for State.

I agree with Magnus: “Krugman is completely one-dimensional.” He’s a frequent (read frequently annoying) panelist on the Charlie Rose programme (not that the programme doesn’t already bare scrutiny). Krugman comes from the same mold as the likes of equally annoying ignoramus Naomi Klein.

It really is a shame when so called economists do not understand the simplest of economic truths. If an “economist” does not agree with Bastiat’s exposition of the broken window fallacy, he should immediately cease to claim the title of economist and instead choose the title of charlatan. To fail to recognize that the difference between war and the broken window is a matter of degree and not kind shows a lack of critical thinking. To recognize this fact and yet to justify warfare on account of the economic benefits of the privileged class is monstrous. Hazlitt’s book still needs to be read by many “economists,” including, obviously, Paul Krugman.