| | | Krugtard: The Mouthpiece of Redistribution & Father of the Housing Bubble
by James E. Miller
Paul Krugman is no stranger to demagoguery. The New York Timescolumnist practically oozes with hatred for his conservative opponents. In spite of his academic accolades—a Nobel Prize in economics and a teaching position at Princeton—the chronically perplexed-looking professor specializes in straw man arguments. It’s not too surprising considering the Grey Lady appeals only to high-minded liberals who already have their minds made up. No loyal Timesreader goes to the editorial page looking for a contrary opinion.
In addition to his regular columns, Krugman keeps a blog for which he saves his innermost rancor. In a recent post decrying Republican opposition to Obama’s big-spending agenda, he summed up the motivating force as getting “rid of the Islamic atheist Kenyan socialist, and install someone who will be nice to rich people.” You see, those who oppose Obama’s overtly corporatist policies are only enamored over his godless worship of Allah. There is no legit objection—just racial and religious antipathy for the black man in the White House.
“‘Saving civilization’ is always a euphemism for stomping on its neck.”
It’s all familiar territory for the world-renowned economist who can’t help but imply his adversaries are Ku Klux Klan members. Like other progressive “thinkers,” Kruggy is quick to call the other side “a haven for racists and reactionaries” when rational debate doesn’t suffice. Since his overt Keynesian theories are too easy to take down on their face, allow me, amiable reader, to sink to the level of offensive ad hominem and dissect the man. It won’t be pretty or eloquent. But if Krugman wants to play in the mud, I will jump right in.
While many children grew up with fantasy novels and mystery tales, a young Paul was far more intrigued by controlling the universe. In his flattering foreword to Isaac Asimov’sFoundation trilogy, Krugman reveals the source of his dictatorship fantasies. He writes:
I didn’t grow up wanting to be a square-jawed individualist or join a heroic quest; I grew up wanting to be Hari Seldon, using my understanding of the mathematics of human behavior to save civilization.
Translation: I spent my childhood wishing that one day I could use large computer models to govern humanity. “Saving civilization” is always a euphemism for stomping on its neck. Krugman became an economist so he could advise political prima donnas on how to best shove around the serfs. Whatever childhood trauma spawned his hatred of the underlings might someday be revealed in an overpriced memoir.
The sad part about Krugman’s unapologetic statist hackery is that his work was once respectable. Prior to his biweekly vomiting of race-baiting and sycophancy in the newspaper of record, he once had a reasoned approach to the dismal science. His book Pop Internationalism contained a witty and incisive defense of free trade. Most surprisingly, the vast majority of the criticism was aimed at a Democratic administration. For a man who now spends his days petting the jackass, it was nice to see some objectivity.
So what ushered in Krugman’s fall to repugnant hyper-partisanship? According to him the 2000 election was “deeply” radicalizing. In other words, the bumbling Texas governor who became chief executive thanks to his Poppy’s connections was too much for Krugman’s precious psyche. All the talk of cutting taxes so the productive class can keep more of its earnings must have lit a fire under his bottom. The next eight years brought us ample columns decrying W. Bush’s incompetence and heartless capitalism. The 2001 Enron accounting scandal was also a driving force behind Krugman’s rampant wealth-bashing, despite his receiving $50,000 from consulting for the company in 1999. Think he acknowledges that personal blemish while trashing greedy account executives? Think again! Rule #1 of political hackery is never let facts get in the way of proselytizing.
Not keen to play second fiddle to her husband, his wife Robin Wells regularly edits and adds to the trash-talking in Krugman’s column. That means upping the portrayals of Republicans as the most evil and slimy creatures ever to walk the Earth. Shamelessly, Krug’s overtly biased better half makes good use of her Ph.D. by tossing in lines of how the GOP spews lies to get its way. The party of Lincoln most certainly does, but the Democrats are just as guilty of the practice.
Wells’s penchant for vitriolic liberalism should have been obvious given her failure to take Krugman’s name as her own. Shrill feminism is the likely culprit. The only thing more progressive and postmodern would have been for each to share surnames divided by a hyphen.
Krugman talks a good game on intellectual truth, but he admits he is incapable of carrying on a simple conversation in an elevator. It’s a wonder Kruggy isn’t agoraphobic. He is a mouse-pad critic only. Even in public forums he can’t bring himself to face critics in the eyes.
All the professional faux pas could be forgiven if Krugman had a smidge of credibility. He famously advocated for former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan “to create a housing bubble” in the early 2000s. The Maestro did just that, setting the course for a financial roller coaster that imploded in the autumn of 2008. When the whirlwind of pointed fingers followed, a few found their way to the scruffy guy on the Times’ opinion page. Krugman fought back by calling his plain advocacy a piece of “analysis.” Then he pivoted to it being a joke. Now he ignores the transgression and is back to pining for a fed-generated boom in home values. It’s enough dishonesty to make a man wish for the Rapture.
He mastered the art of faking intellectualism while polling as the most influential economist around. He should be loathed by anyone who gives a crap about truth and honesty. Yet he teaches at one of the most prestigious universities in America while spouting off ignorant drivel on national television. He lives a life of wealth and luxury while hating those just like him. His writing is one gigantic effort to incite jealousy in the lower class.
At the end of the day, Krugman is overweight, short, insufferable, slightly unkempt, not at all witty, and makes a piss-poor effort at being a true elitist.He takes great joy in his two overweight cats. In many ways, Paul is a plain loser.
And he is the perfect spokesman for a nation addicted to gorging on its own through the massive government apparatus of redistribution.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. takimag.com |
|
