Krugman’s Necrophilic Pederasty
Yesterday, I referenced an article over at Strike the Root, that hilariously, though aptly, characterized Keynesian economics as Mathmetical Masturbation.
In a stroke of luck that can only be attributed to divine intervention (perhaps the mysterious workings of the late great Almighty Lord Keynes himself), “Lilburne” today published an article at Mises.org entitled The Second Coming of Keynes [sic].
In classic sycophantic adoration of Keynes’ paraphilia, Krugman recently lamented the fact that Obama’s stimulus projects were under budget, asserting that their only real purpose was to blow the money.
Astonishing as it may seem, the inbred economics of Paul Krugman would not only seem to suggest, but as Lilburne’s article points out, has explicitly prescribed BURYING CASH UNDERGROUND AND DIGGING IT OUT in order to stimulate the economy.
Though fear not, concerned citizen. As deviant, unconventional, and destructive as these notions sound, they are the expert advice of an economic sage whose wisdom is not within reach of the common man–as evidenced by Krugman’s prescription in 2001 that “economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.” (emphasis added)
Paul Krugman, who fantasizes about being the “nerd saving civilization,” would, in a sane world, be relegated to the lunatic fringe or perhaps the momentary spotlight of internet memedom. Tragically for all of humanity, he is instead given a professorship at Princeton, a New York Times column, and a Nobel Prize.
The civilized reader, especially those whose sensibilities are particularly delicate, may disapprove of such harsh criticisms of an “intellectual” who happens to have a differing viewpoint. But the matter is a bit more serious than that, as Mises points out:
A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.
Nor are Krugman’s perverse economic ideas mere mathematical masturbation. When implemented as coercive, compulsive public policy, they become violent gang rape. So, no, we ought not be conciliatory towards Krugman’s fetishes. As Lilburne points out:
One might think that in writing in such, let’s say “direct,” language, I’m needlessly vilifying both Keynes and Krugman. I certainly wouldn’t write this way about just anyone who I happened to disagree with. But, as should now be evident, Keynesians are special. Their economic doctrines are so fallacious, and their policies are so destructive that, for the sake of truth and humanity, one cannot be too forthright in denouncing them.”
Crawl back into the hole from whence you came, Krugman. Your penchant for economic autoerotic asphyxiation is killing us all.