Tag: Paul Krugman

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies tax policy

Decreases & Increases & Krugman

Paul Krugman, taxes, Social Security

Social Security was never designed for sustainability. The “Ponzi” element was there at the beginning: early recipients received HUGE benefits over their contributions, but as the population matured, that ratio of what working taxpayers put in compared to what they received in benefits decreased. 

Further, because there never was a “lock box” much less any investment of funds — it was always a transfer scheme — as the system matured it hit the point of financial default. Back in the 80s this was fixed by raising the taxes on working people.

And then the kicker: with the rate of reproduction in the U.S. falling like Sisyphus’s rolling stone, the ratio of taxpayers to subsidized retirees went in the wrong direction. The folks assigned to keep track of the system’s finances predict that a major insolvency moment occurs about a decade from now, a few years ahead of earlier predictions.

So what does Nobel-​winning economist Paul Krugman, of The New York Times opinion page, advise?

While we fret about the devastation that benefit cuts and tax hikes would cause, Reason’s Eric Boehm notes that Krugman doesn’t think the cuts are necessary. “First, Krugman says the CBO’s projections about future costs in Social Security and Medicare might be wrong. Second, he speculates that they might be wrong because life expectancy won’t continue to increase. Finally, if those first two things turn out to be at least partially true, then it’s possible that cost growth will be limited to only about 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next three decades and we’ll just raise taxes to cover that.”

Hope over reason! And the progressive’s blithe acceptance of always-​increasing tax burdens.

Serious people should confront facts … and avoid Krugman.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai and DALL-E2

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture media and media people

Dead Economists Walking?

Paul Krugman, economist, propaganda,

Zombies don’t exist. Not like in the movies.

Or like in the pages of The New York Times.

The Times’s economist Paul Krugman has a new book out, Arguing with Zombies, and, if I ever had the tiniest margin of utility nudging me towards reading it, John Goodman’s review in Forbes has dissuaded me. For Krugman doesn’t argue with anyone — he argues against economists whom he mischaracterizes.

No, that’s apparently too kind. He argues against, says Goodman, economists who don’t exist. “Zombies are economists who believe that every tax cut pays for itself with increased revenue,” Goodman explains. “They hate the poor. They are closet racists. They do the bidding of billionaire puppet masters who pay their salaries and fund their research. Their goal in life is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.”

Goodman concludes by noting that Krugman knows better, for “if you are thinking that Krugman has never met a Republican, you might be inclined to cut him some slack.” But no, “it turns out Krugman actually worked in the White House during the Reagan administration. That means he knows the tax cuts weren’t devised by economists whose motivation was to make the rich richer. He knows his fellow economic advisors to the president weren’t puppets, doing the bidding of billionaires. He knows they weren’t closet racists. He knows they didn’t hate the poor.”

Krugman — a Nobel Laureate — calls his enemies the worst names imaginable. Yet, Krugman the Zombie Hunter is one reason our political culture is so monstrous right now.

Not zombie-​monstrous, partisan-monstrous. 

Meanwhile, the two sides that hate each other are united at least in one way, in creating another monster: the $2.2 trillion bailout, and the record new deficit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Paul Krugman, economist, propaganda,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets media and media people too much government

A Former Economist

Paul Krugman, libertarianism, libertarian, freedom, shutdown

Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist and former economist, tested our patience last week with “Trump’s Big Libertarian Experiment.” How many non sequiturs will squeak past the Gray Lady’s editorial department? 

Loads — and all about how the federal government shutdown gives limited government folks what they want: less government.

Subsidy checks to farmers aren’t going out, as “libertarian organizations like Cato” have long advocated. Sure. But it’s no policy change.

As soon as there’s a budget deal, those checks will be made up.

Further, “businesspeople are furious that the Small Business Administration isn’t making loans.” 

Well, it’s high time businesses were weaned off the SBA teat — and a few whiners do not a case for subsidy make.

And then there’s the Food and Drug Administration, which can no longer inspect foods. Since “there’s a long conservative tradition, going back to Milton Friedman, that condemns the F.D.A.’s existence as an unwarranted interference in the free market” libertarians must be pleased, eh?

There is also a long tradition among economists that says businesses don’t get rich poisoning their customers, and that there are many mechanisms in place — and, barring the FDA, more would be in place — to ensure customers that they won’t be infected by eating … Romaine lettuce.

Which then Krugman admits … as if he had belatedly recalled Friedman’s lesson in Capitalism and Freedom. He concedes that the shutdown is not the way Friedman would go about limiting government. Besides, “libertarian ideology isn’t a real force within the G.O.P.”

So what’s the point?

Krugman ends with talk of a smell test: does lack of food inspections smell like freedom?

Something stinks here. But it isn’t spoiled food. Or freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Paul Krugman, libertarianism, libertarian, freedom, shutdown

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Next Bubble to Pop?

bubble, Paul Krugman, recession, student loans, debt, folly, David Stockman

There was a great and wondrous moment, a decade and a half ago, when economist Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate and New York Times’s unregistered shill for the Democratic Party, suggested that what the economy really needed was another housing bubble. 

What he wrote, specifically, was this: “To fight this recession, the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

Krugman later reinterpreted that statement in a clever (if not convincingly honest) way. After the subprime loan industry collapsed in 2008, he attributed that bust to financial market malfeasance, not the Fed-​inflated bubble we got … and that he had previously called for.

Now we are looking at several ready-​to-​burst bubbles:

  • The student loan debt problem seems scary. 
  • The sovereign debt problem is undoubtedly more dangerous and far larger, but is perhaps still able to take on more fake money — all the world’s 1s and 0s have to go somewhere! 
  • So the current bets seem to be on a huge auto loan industry bubble, about to pop.

Loan terms have increased in duration, and the average amount new car buyers are financing has jumped over 17 percent in five years. The idea has been “to continually lower monthly payments,” says David Stockman, “so people can get behind the wheels of vehicles they can’t really afford.”*

Which bubble does Krugman favor? I don’t have the stomach to check.

But, be certain, as we play pop goes the bubble, he’ll play pop goes the weasel.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Stockman seems to be echoing warnings made by Eric Peters, of Eric Peters Autos.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
ideological culture

The Inequality Problem

Ah, the Paul Krugman Problem! How does Nobel Laureate economist-​cum-New York Times progressive-​blogger come to his conclusions?

The other day, the eminent Scott Sumner noted — in “The power of wishful thinking?” — that in the space of one year Krugman seemed to gain a great deal of certainty about how vital it is to reduce inequality.

Sumner quotes Krugman from a year ago, when he frankly admitted that he’d like to agree with Joe Stiglitz’s thesis about inequality, but just wasn’t able to persuade himself.

Unfortunately, Krugman hasn’t given us a lot of reason to follow his “lead,” his new-​found faith in Stiglitzian equality. Sumner cites a possible “inspiration” for Krugman’s new tune: Krugman’s employer, the New York Times, has, as editorial policy, shifted leftward on such issues. And then Sumner waxes philosophical:

Sometimes an economist will change his view on a single issue because of some new empirical study (although that actually doesn’t happen as much as you’d think, or as much as you might like). But what about when an economist suddenly swings sharply to the left or right on a whole range of unrelated issues?

Many people do go through radical conversions; you can find interesting conversion testimonies of a religious nature, if not so many in political economy.

As for me, the subject of inequality continues to fascinate, like picking at a scab.

I suspect that rising inequality is caused by the very institutions that Paul Krugman regards as bedrock: institutions that redistribute money from one group to another; institutions that regulate behavior for the benefit (we’re told) of the worse off; institutions altogether “progressive.”

Surely there would be more downward mobility for the rich and upward mobility for the poor in a freer society than in a more Krugman-​approved society.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people

Countdown to Zero

The New York Times has a timeline of the progress of Obamacare.

It’s okay as far as it goes. Which is not too far, since only the most recent dates seem readily accessible. And since the Times editors blindly favor the Obama-assault.

But sure, labor leaders have both criticized and praised Obamacare (9/​12/​13), some states have fought it (or “moved to undercut” it) (9/​18/​13); Pennsylvania State University has decided not to fine employees $100 a month for being too reticent about personal details on “wellness” questionnaires (9/​19/​13). Etc.

A headshake-​worthy aspect of the chronology, however, is its showcasing of opinion published in the Times itself — as if each Times-punditarian rebuke of opposition to medical serfdom were another epochal event in the steady march of the wonderful Obamacare. So Gail Collins “chastises Republicans” for jeopardizing global stability to oppose Obamacare (9/​19/​13). Paul Krugman avers that the GOP, “hysterical” over Obamacare, is changing from stupid party to crazy party (9/​20/​13).

Fine, fine. But toss in some pro-​free-​market, anti-​socialist and anti-​Krugman events also, okay? Like the first publication of Ludwig von Mises’s comprehensive, devastating critique of Socialism (1922). The publication of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, sweeping saga of social collapse as feverish proto-​Krugmaniacs stamp freedom out of existence (1957). The day Mike Tanner elaborated “Why Freedom Is the Key to Health Care Reform” (9/​5/​09). And let’s not forget John Goodman’s seminal post, “When It Comes to Healthcare Issues, Paul Krugman Is Wrong 100% of the Time” (5/​30/​13).

All that being said, a timeline is one thing, “progress” quite another. The word implies a good goal. Though hey, doctors do sometimes speak of the “progress” of a cancer or a fatal disease.

In the end, a timeline of Obamacare must include its own demise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.