Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

FreeMarkets (97.73)

Racist Republicans & Myths of economics

Recs

12

February 11, 2011 – Comments (7)

Leave it to Krugman to set the record straight.  In this op-ed column, Krugman lays down the gauntlet - that financial conservatives and racists are one and the same.

Krugman writes "...the G.O.P.’s decision, long ago, to seek votes from Southerners angered by the end of legal segregation. With the old Confederacy now the heart of the Republican base, boasting about the party’s Civil War-era legacy is no longer advisable."

It was about 40 years ago that the solid-south started to break from the Democrats.  I guess fifty years ago Krugman would have been a died-in-the-wool Republican, since he appears to discredit the south.  What Krugman, and other South haters, seem to not understand, is that in the last 60 years the Southern populaton has grown by 150%, while Northern states have grown by only 81%.  A lot of Northerners live in Southern states and while climate is a big factor in Northeners moving south, its also about their economies.  But leave it to Krugman to look at the solid-south and call it racism, rather than economics.

Krugman continues "But sooner or later, Republicans were bound to notice other reasons to disavow Lincoln. He was, after all, the first president to institute an income tax. And he was also the first president to issue a paper currency — the “greenback” — that wasn’t backed by gold or silver."

This is pure beauty.  War is the #1 reason why countries leave a gold/silver standard, because they'd go broke if they didn't.  Yet today with the wars started by Republican George W Bush, Krugman is trying to say that gold bugs are pissed of, not at GW, but Lincoln!  Amazing!  The fact that we are debasing our currency today because of GW would not make good reading for Krugman's liberal base.

Krugman makes a few slam dunk observations.  He writes "Start with that bit about debasing our currency. Where did that come from? The dollar’s value in terms of other major currencies is about the same now as it was three years ago."

And he's 100% correct!  Of course comparing our fiat currency to something other than a bunch of other fiat currency's would have been the honest thing to do.  And since he's mocking gold bugs, its interesting that he doesn't compare our currency to gold, but even more interesting is he only goes back three years.  Why?  Because the debasing of our currency started with the 2nd Iraq war.  How nicely this ties into the fact mentioned earlier about debasing our currency during times of war - a fact Krugman smartly avoids.

Krugman continues "And as Mr. Bernanke pointed out, consumer prices rose only 1.2 percent in 2010, an inflation rate that, for the record, is well below the rate under the sainted Ronald Reagan."

I absolutely love this one - the complete acceptance of gov't numbers.  As a child I remember being told that liberals were smarter than conservatives because they questioned authority and the government (this was the 1970's).  Today, the liberals repeat the gov't lines and trust gov't numbers as PROOF, even though they've been discredited by anyone who has looked into their methodology.

He concludes by stating "After all, even Milton Friedman saw the conduct of monetary policy as a technical issue, not a matter of principle; his complaint about the Fed’s role in the Great Depression was that it didn’t print enough money, not that it printed too much."

Now, I like Friedman a lot, and I'd like to see Krugman advocate Friedman's ideas a lot more, which he won't since Krugman loves printing money while Friedman argues for a strong currency.  More importantly he takes Friedman out of context.  Friedman was attempting to discredit Keynes when he argued that large scale gov't deficit spending would NOT stop the Great Depression (which it didn't) and instead that monetary policy was needed to end the contraction of the money supply.  Friedman was opposed to the Federal Reserve, but in writing about the Great Depression he noted that since it does exist, it could have increased the money supply.  His real belief was that had the Federal Reserve NOT existed, the Great Depression would NOT have happened or the severity would have been much less and its length would have been very short indeed.

The more I read Krugman, the more I realize how his politics are getting in the way of any serious economic discussion.  

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 11, 2011 at 3:37 PM, rfaramir (29.59) wrote:

"The more I read Krugman"

Ah, there's your problem! Stop doing that. As a source of information it's a complete loss. As a source of exercising your critical brain muscles, go ahead, there's lots of fodder for an Austrian economist who really knows what's what.

Report this comment
#2) On February 11, 2011 at 3:54 PM, HansHauge (32.47) wrote:

In Krugman's book "the return of depression economics" he states that problems can be whisked away by printing more money. As an example he uses the DC babysitting coop.

Except for one thing Mr. Krugman.... Those babysitting tokens have their value enforced by the organization and must ALWAYS be used for 1 hour of babysitting time. In the real world when you have a currency backed by future tax reveune, the whole system will explode once a hickup in growth occurs. And also now I want two tokens to babysit for one hour because, hey you can afford it.

Report this comment
#3) On February 11, 2011 at 4:05 PM, checklist34 (99.73) wrote:

i don't know if racism is a central part of conservative thinking, thats a bit out there.  if i was forced, at gunpoint, to choose a political party from the big 2 it'd be republican instead of dem simply for their generally less socialistic stance on socio-economic issues.  Thats the only area of politics that matters to me much and I suppose i'm pretty liberal in alot of other areas. 

But people, and businesses, need to fend for themselves.  The only way race could play a role in that is if some race or other dug more deeply into the public purse and stood on its own less.  Dig up some statistics, I never have.

But socioeconomic policies that keep drifting towards socialism will destroy the country.  The fed won't, homosexuals won't, drug use won't, but socialism will, as it always has any society that attempted it.  

I felt that way when I was 20, I will feel that way when i'm 50.  Socialism is bad, mmmkay.  

 

Report this comment
#4) On February 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

NICE!

I'd say he loses credibility with every word he writes, but we'd be in the credibility negatives by now.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#5) On February 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM, GenericInvestor (86.78) wrote:

TEH EVIL RACIST/REALIST!! lock him up next to the child molester and murderer, they are all the same!!!

Report this comment
#6) On February 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

DiLorenzo's hilarious response:

My Thanks to Paul KrugmanPosted by Thomas DiLorenzo on February 11, 2011 05:20 PM

The junior high schoolish smart aleck Paul Krugman, who writes a column for the New York Times (Don’t bother reading them — here’s the general theme:  Democrats good, Republicans bad) mentioned my bookLincoln Unmasked, in today’s column. Consequently, my Amazon.com sales ranking went from the 80,000 range to 4,929 a few minutes ago. Thanks, Paul!  As a fringe benefit my other bookThe Real Lincoln, which was published nine years ago, went all the way to 3,966. Thanks again, Krug! I’ll use the extra royalty money to up my pledge for Robert Murphy’s challenge to Krugman for a debate over Austrian Business Cycle Theory. 

Report this comment
#7) On February 12, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Lordrobot (87.47) wrote:

Lincoln was a Republican, Douglas the Democrat.

If anyone has enslaved anyone it is the Democrats with welfare and gov. handouts. It has resulted in more poor not less poor. If you subsidize corn, you get more corn. If you subsidize wheat you get more wheat. If you subsidize the poor, you get more poor... you also get their losing habits.

For the past two years of Obama's reign, 51% of all US births were born out of wedlock and 95% of them became wards of the state for the next 18 years. In the Black population that number is a shocking 95% of all black births! In 1968 prior to the War on Poverty, the total number was just 2% and for Blacks it was roughly 5%.

Further in 1968 Black employment was at an all time high. It is now at an all time low.

The Democratic party has always been in favor of Slavery. They were at the time of Lincoln, then as Souther Democrats during the reconstruction.

The distinction is that Republicans believe that Blacks can make it on their own by merit. The Democrats treat Blacks like children that need the great white mothers and fathers like Pelosi, and Reid to feed them and cloth them. They think Blacks can't make it without their help.

Blacks in the 50s and 60s fought for the right to go to schools and they made great progress by competing. But thanks to liberal policies competition is no longer necessary. Liberals give prizes like the Nobel Peace prize to people who never earn it; so there is a loss of respect and then a loss of self-respect. Today the Black drop out rate is higher than ever in history.

Krugman is a modern day slaver. And like most of the modern day slavers, they guise their slavery in the form of handouts. But what they are really doing is creating hand to mouth dependence, the essence of slavery. Just like abused children, Blacks turned from the party of Lincoln, and embraced their slavers. Today 95% of Blacks are democrats, worshiping at the footstools of their great white liberal mothers and fathers.

Most astonishing of all is that after 43 years of economic decline, Blacks voting for those policies that have enslaved are worse off economically than ever before. So I guess great white father Krugman is just trying to squeeze out the last drop of Black prosperity and convert it to slavery.

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement