Why is Paul Krugman the KRUGMANATOR? He's not even that far to the left, frankly. Keynes was not, as it happens, a socialist. Neither is Krugman. It's kinda weird.
A lot of the point of this blog is to say bad words on the Internet as a way of blowing off steam. But the other idea is to find the touchy moments of ideological censorship and fuck with them. For instance, no active military service member is fighting for the freedom of any American civilian. Individual American freedom is not now seriously threatened by any foreign enemies, nor has it been for generations. Likewise, no service member who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan sacrificed their life so that any American might be more free. It is just the facts.
So, I decided to look at the responses to one of Krugman's NYT columns and tally up just what the objections are. What are his Heresies?
Paul Krugman explains that "nobody understands debt." This explanation has occasioned much squawking. This squawking, upon examination, furthers this blog's long-standing contention that invocations of "civility" are nothing more than a political bludgeon, more effective yet less bracingly honest than a good old "piss off, fucknose." You can learn a lot about how Our Depraved National Discourse by looking at just how and why Krugman pisses people off. He is not pious, as it emerges. He is a Heretic.
To begin with the dimwit fringes, Jonah Goldberg tries a "gotcha," with predictable results:
the normal critique of (excessive) taxation is that it causes a diversion of resources away from productive activities into less productive uses determined by politicians.
By "normal" he means "childish." It may have escaped Jonah's attention, but in a democracy, the "people" elect "representatives" to "run the country." These representatives are "politicians." Many of them are contemptible, no doubt! But no more so than your typical hedge fund manager or National Review sycophant.
Jonah Goldberg does not believe that tax policy ought to be left to the elected representatives of the people, but to the rich people who are currently very conspicuously using historically low tax rates to engage in the "productive activity" of not spending any money to create jobs.
Jonah Goldberg is a shithead, but it's worth noting how his fumble-brained post forces out one of Krugman's Heresies:
ONE. IN A DEMOCRACY, THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD DETERMINE TAX POLICY.
To get even dumber, we have "Smitty," in whom is combined the self-respect of Renfield, the self-awareness of a nutty tit attached to a crack-addled squirrel, and the literacy of a doorknob.
What Krugman and the rest of his ilk have absolutely never done is shown why citizens should quietly accept what amounts to an acceptance of theft.
TWO. LET'S NOT PANDER TO THE EITHER DELIBERATELY OR WILFULLY STUPID.
From here on it gets muckier. Or not.
THREE. ANCIENT LUSKIN, REALLY?
Oh, but let's still play.
When government spends money, resources that would otherwise have been used to produce valuable private-sector outputs are instead used to produce public-sector outputs. The values of these foregone private-sector outputs are a genuine cost of government projects regardless of government’s funding method, regardless of the merits of the government projects, and regardless of the nationalities of government’s creditors. And the private-sector outputs that are never produced because resources are instead used to produce public-sector outputs do not miraculously appear – they are not miraculously ‘unforegone’ – simply because the obligation to pay for public-sector outputs is deferred to the future or because the holders of the debt instruments are citizens of the same country as the taxpayers.
FOUR. BUT THE "PRIVATE SECTOR" IS ALREADY NOT PUTTING OUT OUTPUTS. I MEAN, HOLY SHIT. THE "JOB CREATORS" ARE CLEARLY NOT CREATING JOBS. THIS IS THE MOST POINTLESS, ABSTRACT OBJECTION EVER.
Mas! Same guy:
The argument in the above paragraph isn’t unique: it is elaborated in great detail in many of the works on public finance by another Nobel laureate economist, James Buchanan.* It’s discouraging that Mr. Krugman seems to be unfamiliar with Buchanan’s contributions.
FIVE. LOTS OF IDIOTS WRITE BOOKS.
Paul Krugman argues today that nobody understands debt. You can read the whole thing if you want, but if you've read any of Paul Krugman's columns since 2008, you don't need to, because you've read it already.
All's lame, lame utterly; a terrible booby is bored.
SIX. A LOT OF HORRIBLE GEEKS WILL SCREECH IF YOU POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT MOST AMERICANS WANT DECENT JOBS, AND THAT NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE "DEFICIT" WHO ISN'T A TOOL OR A LIAR.