Psychopathic Paul Krugman Laments Lack of Earthquake Destruction

Paul Krugman’s Google Plus account writes:

“People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.”

Paul Krugman writes in his article Oh! What A Lovely War!:

“World War II is the great natural experiment in the effects of large increases in government spending, and as such has always served as an important positive example for those of us who favor an activist approach to a depressed economy.”

Paul Krugman states on CNN:

"If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months," he said. "And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better"

If this doesn’t convince you that socialists like Krugman are actually closet psychopaths, I don’t know what will.

Obviously Krugman’s claim is so utterly preposterous that it doesn’t even need refuting, but for the die hard commies I feel compelled to present this:

The Broken Window Fallacy

From That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat, 1850

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation: “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs — I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is seen.

If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labor, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs in shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window. Now, as James B. forms a part of society, must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labors, it has lost the value of the broken window.

Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed,” and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — to break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labor; or, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”

What will you say, Moniteur Industriel? What will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen.

“Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”
The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention.

One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two.

Another, under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident.

The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labor suffers proportionately by the same cause.

It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favor, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying — what would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

reply to post by mnemeth1


well put and good logic...but uh...who the hell is Paul Krugman lol...some liberal douche who thinks people really care and listen to what he says? uh huh...

reply to post by here4awhile


He's a Nobel Prize winning economist that has influence over the nation's economic policy through his New York Times editorials.

That, my friend, is who Paul Krugman is.

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

well put and good logic...but uh...who the hell is Paul Krugman lol...some liberal douche who thinks people really care and listen to what he says? uh huh...

LMAO i only know him from get him to the greek.. Jonah hill "Are you paul krugman" Paul "yes" Jonah hill "my dad loves your sh**.. lol

Mr. Krugman has been saying some very strange things lately, for a person of such "regard". Alien Invasions...TPTB etc...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Originally posted by ChungTsuU
Mr. Krugman has been saying some very strange things lately, for a person of such "regard". Alien Invasions...TPTB etc...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Oh yes, thanks so much for reminding me about that.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by here4awhile

 

He's a Nobel Prize winning economist that has influence over the nation's economic policy through his New York Times editorials.

That, my friend, is who Paul Krugman is.

edit on 24-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

That is why Nobel prizes mean nothing now that and Obama getting one for being black its great to know we have zorg running our econ

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by ChungTsuU
Mr. Krugman has been saying some very strange things lately, for a person of such "regard". Alien Invasions...TPTB etc...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Oh yes, thanks so much for reminding me about that.

Friend:

More Krugman:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

I have noticed him saying bizarre things as well. It begs the question of why he is saying these things. I don't necessarily think that it has to do with his liberal leanings. There are not a lot of libs calling for saying more destruction from earthquakes would stimulate the economy.

I can think of few reasons why he is saying these things:

1. He genuinely believes what he says calling into question his competency
   
2. He is trying to show how much of a joke the economy has become
   
3. He is trying to let people know in some under-handed way that things are not what they seem (Highly speculative)
   

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
its great to know we have zorg running our econ

LOL

Dead

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by here4awhile

 

He's a Nobel Prize winning economist that has influence over the nation's economic policy through his New York Times editorials.

That, my friend, is who Paul Krugman is.

So then here4awhile was right when he said Krugman was a "liberal douche who thinks people really care and listen to what he says."

Unfortunately, the Hill and White House are infested with liberal douches, and they do listen to what this sociopath (I don't think psychopath applies) has to say. You know, it really makes me wonder how all of these well off, went to all the best schools, effete, liberal snobs would react if one day they woke up and found reality had gone all Twilight Zone on them and they had to actually work for a living. I wonder how long Krugman would last as a boilermaker, how Reid would fare as a bricklayer, or how well Obama would do as a farmer.

But most of all I wonder if these men could truly empathize with ordinary Americans for just one moment - people who know what it's like to live from one paycheck to the next, praying that nobody gets sick and that the transmission will hold for just a couple of months until the tax refund check arrives - if the experience would change them and give them more insight and compassion for their fellow man, or if they would still consider the lives of individual members of the proletariat, the mob if you will, insignificant when compared to the great work they consider themselves to be doing.

There is an inevitible point technology reaches where his veiw on life becomes illogical and ignorant.

Its a pity somone in such a position of power is so stupid... just like mr hawking being scared of aliens.

reply to post by here4awhile


Be afraid of Krugman, be very afraid.

Also, here's a pic of his statement if anyone wants to gag:

reply to post by mnemeth1


Krugman is a self described socialist who believes that free markets are evil. He's the typical academic who, when events on the ground dispel his theoritical notions, gets nasty and seeks to explain why his policies are wrong.

At the end, Krugman can never be wrong. He will always point to more government spending as the solution - it does not matter how much the government spends, if the results are not positive and as he predicted then he simply responds with the notion that they did not spend enough. He is clearly anti-intellectual, the definition of a true intellectual being someone motivated by curiosity and he is anything but curious about alternative theories than his own. Anybody that relys defending his thesis by forcing someone to prove a negative has a weak thesis that is grounded on ideology, not science.

Krugman's Nobel Prize? It was written about historical trade patterns, not modern day economics nor monetary. Its full of esoteric nonsense, typical egg head stuff.

He's been out getting more aggressive with his speaches - why? Because history is once again proving him wrong. He will continue down this slope until his credibility is ruined and he is out of the national spotlight and back to where he belongs - teaching kids at Princeton where his impact on the larger world is tiny.

Anyway, we can easily test his theory. How about the government razes his home and see what that does to the local economy in his neighborhood?

reply to post by dolphinfan


Do you know how happy it makes me to read posts like yours?

You know Krudman's background, understand why his theories are nonsense, and can articulate your position clearly in a short concise post.

I suppose I have to show some journalistic integrity and sadly report to you all that the Google+ account that made the earthquake comment has turned out to be a fake.

I personally reviewed the account, which has posts going back over a month, before posting this. I was convinced by the comments that the account was legitimate.

As we can see by several other legitimate Krugman posts, the earthquake comment is completely keeping in line with what Krugman preaches.

Here are a few more choice Krugman quotes:

Paul Krugman wrote this on his blog.

And yes, this does mean that the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary, if not for Japan then at least for the world as a whole. If this sounds crazy, well, liquidity-trap economics is like that — remember, World War II ended the Great Depression.

Paul Krugman had this to say in a NYT editorial.

Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday’s horror [the 9/11 attacks]. These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy [the bombing of Pearl Harbor], which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Krugman was spouting this trash on the Sunday shows, highlighting the benefits of disaster as a source of economic recovery.

By that logic, Japan should be estatic that they had a year full of tragedy with massive infrastructure destruction. If reasonable economists agreed with Krugman, their projected economic growth rates would be fantastic, rather than the -.03 projected GDP growth currently forecasted for Japan.

By that logic, if the Chinese truly wanted to become the world's economic superpower they would simply blow up the Three Gorges Dam and be all set.

Economic thought is simple, it boils down to the velocity of money through an economy. The greater the velocity, the greater the economic growth. It is sad that there is an entire body of economists (who have repeatedly been proven wrong) that would suggest that engaging in armed conflict, either by initiating it or responding to it or tearing up and rebuilding functioning infrastructure is a better economic strategy than taking the same amount of capital and handing it over to the citizens of that country.

Krugman and his ilk would rather take $billions a year to tear up and repave route 66 every year than give it to free citizens to generate higher velocity of capital. In case they haven't realized it, the Keynesian's have become a joke as evidenced by the entire world rejecting that approach to economic recovery. To think that Krugman (and Obama) are right, you have to believe that the finance ministers and heads of state of Italy, Germany, the UK, India, Brazil, Japan, Sweden, France, Greece, Norway and Australia are wrong since all of them are moving in a direction to cut the expanse of the state rather than enlarge it.

The entire Keynesian school of economic thought is predicated on an inherent mistrust and lack of faith in individuals and inherent faith and trust in government.

Originally posted by ChungTsuU
Mr. Krugman has been saying some very strange things lately, for a person of such "regard". Alien Invasions...TPTB etc...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Maybe he's been spending a lot of private time on ATS?

The Noble peace prize laurate and eminient economist Mr. Krugman is right in a certain but perverse way perhaps. Every human life is precious. However quakes do happen, and the best we can do is to pray that lives be spared. If lives were spared but just old and decrepit buildings and infrastructure are damage, that it is only right that funds be 'unhoarded' to rebuild it.

Money is everywhere, but best used if it is circulated. Hiding in banks or gold will do no one any good anyway. Thus should the damage be extensive, it would mean a massive reconstruction and thus redistribution and circulation of wealth to the human capital as well as providing safer and better infrastructure that can withstand the next quake.

Just a few days ago, the billionaire of Virgin Brannigan lost his beloved home castle on a island to a fire struck by lightning. No lives were lost. He vowed to rebuild it. While many thank that no lives were lost, many too thank the opportunity for jobs created to rebuild his castle.

It seem small scale of cos, but my point is, sometimes, it takes a jolt from above to get us into the right direction if we stubbornly insist on a wrong path. Someone up above is looking out for us greater humanity all. Warnings had been sent, best it be recognised, acknowledged and worked upon instead of continually be stubborn. ......

reply to post by mnemeth1

Call it HOAX, mods...this just out...

Paul Krugman Impersonator Uses Google Plus To Make Stupid Arguments In Bad Faith
It seems that some hardcore ninny took to the Google+ platform disguised as Paul Krugman and used that venue to disseminate some controversial statements about yesterday's earthquake...www.huffingtonpost.com...