Weaponized Keynesianism is still one of my favorite terms. But not in the sense that Barney Frank of Paul Krugman used it.
I tend to think of Weaponized Keynesianism as a term that states that one can use Keynesian economic theory as a weapon of mass disruption and destruction. That one can combine fiat currency and debt into a deadly financial nuke that can wipe out any financial institution, whether it be an individual, a corporation or a country.
I mean Bernanke isn’t the Keynesian that Krugman is.
If anything, I’d put him up there with Mankiw and honestly Mankiw isn’t as unsufferable as Krugman is.
But yeah I mean Bernanke is just mainstream. It’d be wrong to say he’s as Keynesian as other popular economists are.
Bernanke is a typical consumption-and-debt based Keynesian. Borrow money, spend money, don’t save too much, manipulate rates to get desired results.
Krugman is borderline insane. Create bubbles to off-set previous bubbles? Economic impact of natural disasters is good? We need to prepare for an alien invasion that doesn’t exist in order to revive the economy?
Krugman probably drives around smashing windows and slashing tires just to try and raise the GDP. The dude’s a radical.
Keynes and Krugman are walking. Keynes says, “I’ll pay you $5,000 to eat a dog turd.” Krugman does it. Keynes doesn’t have any evil savings and didn’t think Krugman would do it: The next day he begs for the money back. Krugman says, “I’ll give it back if you eat a turd.” Keynes does it. Krugman says, “That was stupid: No one made money and we’ve both eaten sh*t.” Keynes says: “But we boosted GDP by $10,000.”
Peter Klein (via anti-state)
Judging by how many times Krugman has refuted his past statements I’d rephrase that to say Krugman only recognizes what Krugman believes to be true in the now and what Krugman doesn’t believe to be true in the now.
Paul Krugman, who was obviously high on crack at the time he made this comment. (via notquitecharlotte)
Nobel laureate in economics everyone!
In the same interview, Krugman said that “Inflation is better for workers”.
Talk about pulling shit out of your ass. How is inflation good for anyone, let alone workers? You make $1,000 a month and by the time you get around spending this money, it’s worth $950. How can that be good for anyone, let alone people who don’t make enough to write off losses due to inflation?
Obviously one of the smartest. Obviously.
Obama is obviously one of the smartest constitutional scholars out there.
When I read that quote, I nearly shit my pants. But then I took a step back and I thought about it and Obama is 100% right here.
Krugman is brilliant, in his own way. He knows the Keynesian system inside out and understands how it functions and what drives it right down to the last detail.
But that’s also why he’s so awfully wrong and comes of as stupid to some of us. We don’t agree with Krugman on the fundamental level. If John Maynard Keynes was truly the messiah and Keynesian Economics was the gospel, then Krugman would be Saint Peter.
The issue here isn’t that Krugman doesn’t understand what he preaches, it’s that he preaches about false idols and misguided theories. Krugman understands that in the system that’s in place now, new economic bubbles must inflate when previous bubbles burst. It’s the vehicle that drives the system, along with inflation and perpetual debt.
And he’s right, it is what drives the system.
The real issue is that Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian don’t realize that they’re driving the economy right off a cliff. Massive swings and zero incentive to save if great for the very few that lend money. It’s also great for those with enough capital and insider info to walk into bulging sectors and walk out with large profits right before they burst.
What’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander. The idea that wealth would trickle down is not so flawed, but our crony government won’t let the wealth go anywhere. Redistribution is the goal, the guise is that it will be redirected to the poor.
Bailouts are the vessel.
In a free market, people acquire wealth and most eventually lose it. Banks, through their greed, shortsightedness and to a degree, their stupidity, made some of the worst decisions and investments in the history of finance over the last decade. The housing and mortgage bubbles burst and their own house of cards came crashing down.
Typically, these unsound firms and corporations would lose business, profits and perhaps even close down. Those that were once wealthy would have lost wealth and power within their industry and opened up room for newcomers to step in and establish themselves. This would have been the free market forces acting normally. Some of the rich would have tumbled down to the lower class and some of the opportunistic poor would have been given an a chance to climb to the upper class.
But that’s not what happened. What transpired was that the media, owned by the very same banks that needed help, convinced the people that these banks were “too big to fail” and that if they collapsed, their money would be in danger. None of that is true, however. Most everyone’s money was secured by FDIC and even if the money wasn’t covered, banks don’t just disappear, even the most troubled banks go through bankruptcy, where a new entity steps in, takes the healthy assets, cuts redundancy, and things continue flawlessly. It’s happened countless times before and should have happened again. Enter the Bailouts. Artificially changing the natural course of events, laying a hefty tax burden on the shoulders of the middle and lower class, handing over billions if not trillions of dollars to the same buffoons that messing things up in the first place and curtailing the free market cycle.
That’s the system Krugman predicted and promotes. So yes, in a sense, he’s “one of the smartest economic reporters out there”…
Relatively speaking, of course.