|
 While a daylong daylong instance past Paul Krugman did whatever solidified and original impact in economics, that is not the think he was awarded the Nobel prize this year. Krugman
read more
While a long long time ago Paul Krugman did some solid and innovative work in economics, that is not the reason he was awarded the Nobel prize this year. Krugman was selected for the same reason that Barack Obama will be elected president—he is the Anti-Bush.
Just as in 1976 the fallacies and limitations of the New Deal, Great Society and the Keynesian economic theory were becoming apparent, Milton Friedman, with his neoclassical economic theories, got his Nobel—so it is appropriate that a spokesperson for the coming age of liberalism be honored.
Because the Decider, has almost single handily, betrayed every conservative principle while he incompetently destroyed the country, we are on the cusp of the Age of the New Left—a type of liberalism/neo-socialism never before seen in America.
 And that is what Paul Krugman unabashedly endorses. He is the self-proclaimed conscience of liberalism. He says we need a “new New Deal.”
The Nobel laureate is a proponent of the idea that big government, really big government, can solve most all of our problems. He was intially a critic of the $700 billion bailout—it was not socialist enough. But once the Senate added language authorizing nationalization of the nation's banks he was enthusiastic
Not surprisingly, Krugman was a fan of the quasi-governmental agency Fannie Mae. Like he so often does, Krugman ignored or fudged facts to make the case for the unconstitutional entity that was the engine which drove the housing bubble . Last July Krugman wrote that excessive hand wringing over Fannie Mae was unwarranted—Fannie Mae would be ok--it was heavily regulated and he claimed it did not purchase subprime mortgages.
The truth is the agency did indeed purchase subprime mortgages, was wrought with corruption, and it was Krugman's nemesis George Bush who, several years ago, had urged Congress to tighten up regulation of the agency—something which the Democrats in Congress had no use for (unlike the campaign contributions they received from Fannie—Chris Dodd in first place, and Barack Obama third).
But then when Fannie Mae was totally nationalized, Krugman, of course, found that to be a very good thing.
Last summer when we were in the midst of the oil bubble, Krugman took the liberal stance that this was actually a good thing—and was caused by demand for oil exceeding a diminishing supply. He thought it was an excellent development because this would force people to behave in an ecologically responsible way.
Besides, the price of gas dosen't really matter all that much to a Princeton professor-New York Times columnist.
But yes, it is essential that we quit being petroleum pigs—what is offensive about Paul Krugman is the utter glee he gets in “the people” being economically coerced into doing the right thing.
Liberals and leftists always want to coerce us into doing those things which they believe are in the best interests of “the people”--whether it is tax credits, increased regulation, heavy handed bureaucratic oversight—or jacking up the price of gasoline.
The case of Paul Krugman is actually kind of sad. At one time he was a respected and perceptive International Trade theorist. But then he became a know-it-all and started saying stuff like:
"Being progressive means being partisan. "
Paul Krugman is now just a political hack.
   |
