Tag: Paul Krugman

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Three Cheers for Robert Murphy

Here’s something worth three cheers. Possibly four.

Robert Murphy is a prolific young economist of the free-market “Austrian” school of economics, which has a vibrant online presence at Mises.org, the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

In October, Murphy decided to challenge Paul Krugman, the prominent economics professor, author and New York Times columnist, to a debate on Keynesian versus Austrian business cycle theory. After all, as Nobel-Prize-winning economist and partisan left-wing scribbler, Krugman tends to insist on policies the opposite of what any reasonable economic conclusion might be.

Krugman’s extremist, Big Government über alles positions should make for a great fireworks display in a well-attended debate with the scrupulously sane and reasonable Murphy. Point-counterpoint. The debate would also be a great venue for Murphy to publicize the sorely needed Austrian explanation of why massive governmental perversion of capital structure and market incentives ain’t exactly the best way to foster economic growth.

Murphy launched an Internet campaign, complete with goofy (and funny) animated YouTube video, to pressure Krugman. Murphy is asking folks to pledge a sum to the Fresh Food Program at a New York food bank that would be collected only if Krugman does debate him.

At last count, pledges have topped $50,000.

I hope Krugman agrees. Feeding hungry people is a good cause, and so is saving the economy from annihilation by Krugmanesque economics.

Meantime, give Murphy at least three huzzahs for pluck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Social Security Beyond Retirement Age

Social Security turned 75 last week, and yet I saw few demands to retire the program.

Instead, pundits like Paul Krugman took the occasion to praise the septuagenarian boondoggle.

Krugman started boldly, saying that the program “brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.” Huh? Social Security has indeed brought a steady income to retired Americans, many of whom would have had to rely on their children’s help to live out their last years. But Krugman doesn’t say that. Instead he implies that, before Social Security, old folks led indecent and base lives.

But think about this: Saving for yourself and living on a limited means is indecent? It lacks dignity?

Krugman also talks about the economics of the program, defending, for instance, its dual accounting method in a bizarre way. But mostly he steps carefully around Social Security’s biggest failings, which include the intergenerational swindle, providing bigger rewards-over-contributions to earlier retirees than to current recipients, and, by its nature, will take more from, and give less to, future retirees.

Most shockingly, though, he says this: “Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund.”

Krugman does all but state that the special account has money in it.

It doesn’t. The “trust fund” consists of IOUs from Congress. That’s it.

I guess Social Security is a program too important to Krugman to tell the truth about.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets too much government

Krugman’s Crazy Crotchets

Paul Krugman is getting sillier and sillier these days. He’s supposed to be an economist, and not long ago some people in Sweden gave him an award for his economic work. So why would he suggest that economic incentives just don’t matter?

The New York Times columnist bashed Republican Senator Jon Kyl for stating that generous unemployment benefits can reduce the incentive to look for new work. Krugman says that this isn’t the textbook view of things shared by himself and the Democrats. “What Democrats believe,” Krugman says, “is what textbook economics says.”

Gee. So what does textbook economics say?

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal actually checked a textbook in economics. According to this textbook, “Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job.”

Interesting. So who wrote this textbook? Yes, that’s right: Paul Krugman.

This partisan fellow, Krugman, often seems to go out of his way to be contradictory as possible. Does he believe his own babbling? Or is he just trying to get a rise out of us?

Or is it to please his editors over at the Times?

Call it an economic incentive.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption

Standards of Behavior

When it comes to standards, how low can we go?

Congressman Charlie Rangel had failed to report more than half a million on his congressional financial disclosure forms, violated rent control laws in New York, taken corporate-funded junkets, and more. After being admonished by the House ethics committee, he has finally decided to take a leave of absence as chairman of the powerful Ways & Means Committee.

But before he stepped down, some excused him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that Rangel’s behavior “was not something that jeopardized our country in any way.” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, “It is worth pointing out that none of these things actually seem to affect national policy.”

Oh, goody! He didn’t destroy the entire country!

Then there’s a local scandal in Washington, D.C. Former crack-mayor, current Councilmember Marion Barry allegedly earmarked his girlfriend a $15,000 city contract and then took a kickback from her. The council just censured Barry.

But Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy notes that people in Barry’s 8th Ward are dying of AIDS at an alarming rate, while money appropriated to help has vanished. He writes, “If Barry did take a kickback from his girlfriend, they say, it didn’t result in somebody’s death. So why should he face censure when those who stole the AIDS money got away clean?”

He didn’t kill anyone: Our new standard for ethical behavior. Really?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Treason and Terrorism and You

All tyrants love unlimited government. But do all advocates of unlimited government love tyranny? Well, recently major fans of big government sure have been blurting out their hysterical hatred for normal democratic disagreement.

Take Paul Krugman, New York Times rah-rah boy for humungoid government. He recently referred to opposition to the cap-and-trade bill as “treason against the planet.”

Treason, really?

Since the consequences of that policy for the food supply will almost certainly further raise worldwide prices, economist David D. Friedman asked whether Krugman himself isn’t committing some kind of murder: Because of policies Krugman pushes, thousands more will likely starve to death.

But if you think Krugman’s rhetoric is overblown, get a load of California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. In an interview in late June, she objected to Californians who influenced their Republican representatives to vote against “revenue” — her word for tax increases. She said, and I quote: “I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.”

Yes, the Democrats’ leader in the California Assembly referred to that special feature of representative democracy commonly known as “free speech” as “terrorism.”

Krugman and Bass need an education on basic terms. I guess it’s up to us to provide it.

If this be treason — or terrorism — make the most of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

He Should Have Pleaded the Fifth

Economists tell tales.

The best are those that make it easier for us to understand very complicated ideas. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate, wrote one such tale years ago, an essay called “Ricardo’s Difficult Idea.” It explains something economist David Ricardo discovered nearly 200 years ago: When nations trade they both become better off even when some people seem to suffer.

Since that essay Krugman has been telling tales for the New York Times. Not all have been as wholesome.

Krugman appears to be one of those court wizard economists who believe they — that is, the government — can fine-tune the economy. In his August 2, 2002 column he says that “[t]o fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that . . . Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

Yes, back in 2002 Krugman supported the Fed’s super-low interest rates, and predicted the outcome: A housing bubble.

Which has burst.

Since then, Krugman’s readers have looked for someone to blame. Well, Krugman’s own words give us all we need to incriminate his own very self . . . and his fellow court wizards.

Familiar story: Self-aggrandizing experts aim to fix things, and put us all in a fix. The case against government management of the economy just got even stronger.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.