BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Paul Krugman Archive

Wednesday

16

October 2013

0

COMMENTS

Notable Quotations

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government

Chris Edwards, “Budget Battles Highlight Importance of Federalism:”

Outside of the military, the federal government is mainly just a giant cash transfer machine, vacuuming up taxpayer earnings and redistributing them to individuals, businesses, nonprofit groups, and state/local governments through more than 2,000 subsidy programs.

***

Brink Lindsey, “Kludgeocracy’s Lessons for Libertarians:”

The sad truth – sad, that is, for people like me – is that small-government rhetoric is much more popular than actual small-government policies. American public opinion, I’m sorry to say, is pretty comfortable with big government; it’s just not very comfortable with how comfortable it is.

***

Niall Ferguson, “Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3

“For too long, Paul Krugman has exploited his authority as an award-winning economist and his power as a New York Times columnist to heap opprobrium on anyone who ventures to disagree with him. Along the way, he has acquired a claque of like-minded bloggers who play a sinister game of tag with him, endorsing his attacks and adding vitriol of their own. I would like to name and shame in this context Dean Baker, Josh Barro, Brad DeLong, Matthew O’Brien, Noah Smith, Matthew Yglesias and Justin Wolfers. Krugman and his acolytes evidently relish the viciousness of their attacks, priding themselves on the crassness of their language.”

Tuesday

3

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Tuesday

30

March 2010

0

COMMENTS

Tuesday

9

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

Paul Krugman Unintentionally Offers Sound Advice For Republicans

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Paul Krugman is all in a tizzy once again.  This time he’s lamenting the lack of dictatorial powers available to liberal presidents, and thus their inability to ram their agenda down our throats.  He then attempts to criticize the Republicans:

It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis.

Is it just me, or has he just suggested a powerful campaign commercial for…the Republicans?

It turns out that, for the electorate, paralysis is preferable to the radical left-wing policies advocated by the likes of Paul Krugman.

Friday

5

February 2010

1

COMMENTS

No Deficit In Hypocrisy For Krugman

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

Paul Krugman’s latest op-ed says deficits don’t matter.  It’s all just hysterics driven by politics:

These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.

…So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

Krugman’s head is firmly in the sand on today’s massive, runaway deficit.  He’s clinging desperately to the Keynesian claptrap about spending our way to prosperity and one day, after government has grown so big and the economy is in stimulated utopia and we’re all millionaires, reigning in public spending.

But it wasn’t always so.  In 2003, when the 10-year deficit projection was a mere fraction of what it is today, Krugman was sounding the alarm:

Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.

And that’s way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account — as the C.B.O. cannot — the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it’s clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.

So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don’t matter. But we’re looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.

…But what’s really scary — what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea — is the looming threat to the federal government’s solvency.

So smaller deficits under Bush are a “fiscal crisis” and part of a “looming threat to the federal government’s solvency.”  But today’s massive deficits under the Democrats just don’t matter, and anyone who says otherwise is a scaremonger promoting “deficit hysteria.”

Just another day in hypocrite paradise.

Friday

15

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

Krugman Wants To Learn From France, But Ignores History

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

We don’t need to fear turning America into France by passing ObamaCare, says Paul Krugman in a recent column. After all, European welfare state economies are doing great!  What’s his proof?  Just trust your eyes!

Actually, Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it.

What Krugman doesn’t say is that none of these European welfare states actually got their wealth by being welfare states. They got wealthy the way all countries do: through liberal markets and free trade. They then built massive welfare states on top of already wealthy societies. And lo and behold, when they did that their growth rates dropped significantly. They trade away higher future levels of prosperity for the illusion of present day security. That seems like an ok trade when it’s first made, but as more and more time passes, the difference between what people have and what they could have had with a more dynamic economy renders it a bum deal. And that’s before getting into arguments about the inherent instability in large, bureaucratic government and centrally planned societies.

Krugman does later provide some manner of statistical support for his apparent contention that there are no economic trade-offs (that’s his theme these days: no costs for implementing the radical agenda!) for instituting a cradle-to-grave nanny state, but Greg Mankiw’s numbers are better.

Saturday

5

September 2009

0

COMMENTS

Suddenly, Saving Is Good

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

The Obama administration has consistently parroted the Paul Krugman view of economic recovery: spend, spend, spend.  Based on faulty Keynesian economics, this demand-side framework thinks too much saving is a bad thing.  According to this Krugman approved theory, there is a global savings glut and if America starts saving too then we’ll all be doomed!

This kind of Keynesian claptrap has dominated the administration’s economic thinking to date.  Yet now the President has inexplicably decided that saving is good, and therefore we need more of it:

The government is trying to make it easier for Americans to save for retirement, President Obama said Saturday, as he noted the toll the recession has taken on extra income and savings accounts.

One initiative will allow people to have their federal tax refunds sent as savings bonds. Others are meant to require workers to take action to stay out of an employer-run savings program rather than having to take action to join it.

If the President is serious, I have a simple suggestion to encourage greater savings in America: lower taxes and let Americans keep more of the money they earn.

Friday

28

August 2009

0

COMMENTS

How To Expose A Hack 101

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Don Boudreaux should teach it:

Noting that “it’s important to have some perspective,” Paul Krugman argues that while Uncle Sam’s budget deficit is now large, “we also have a huge economy, which means that things aren’t as scary as you might think” (”Till Debt Does Its Part,” August 28).  Whew!  No cause for much concern, for the size of America’s GDP swamps the size of the budget deficit.

During the Bush years, however, Mr. Krugman preached a different gospel.  For example, in his February 11, 2005 column – devoted to condemning tax cuts – he insisted that “the deficit is indeed a major problem.”

So let’s take Mr. Krugman’s advice and get some perspective.  In 2005, when Mr. Krugman insisted that government’s budget deficit was “indeed a major problem,” that deficit was 2.5 percent of GDP.  Today, when Mr. Krugman no longer is very concerned about the budget deficit, that deficit will be about 11 percent of GDP.  Hmmmm….

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Sunday

15

March 2009

0

COMMENTS