Washington, D.C.: The REAL Oligarchy

Back from Iceland, Paul Krugman now takes on what he calls the Oligarchy, but as usual, he points his guns in the wrong direction. According to Krugman, we have huge amounts of income inequality that is destroying U.S. society because, according to him, the State does not have enough power.

(Since Krugman's annual income literally is in the millions of dollars, I am not sure why he does not blame himself in part for the problem. After all, if according to his Keynesian doctrines, wealth only can be distributed, not created, then Krugman is as big a thief as he accuses others of being.)

Readers can look at the column and draw their own conclusions, but it seems to me that Krugman has missed something that tells the REAL story about our economic plight: the least-productive and most parasitic area of the country -- Washington, D.C., and its immediate environs in Maryland and Northern Virginia -- is also the highest-income locale. Let that one sink in, folks.

No doubt, a number of readers of this blog will be enraged by what I am writing. Washington not productive?!? Why, no one spends more than those who inhabit the nation's capital, and every Keynesian knows that the most productive thing anyone can do is to spend, spend, spend.

Indeed, according to the Keynesians, Washington is SO efficient in its spending that it is making the rest of us better off via the vaunted Keynesian multiplier. Furthermore, Washington with its regulatory and lawmaking power is able to create huge barriers to economic growth, confiscate property (and redistribute it among those who live there), and then get its shills like Krugman to claim that others are to blame.

It is Washington that forces us to put ethanol into our cars, damaging the engines and lowering gas mileage; it is Washington that creates regulations that benefit the least productive people at the expense of those that are productive. It is Washington that has created thousands of new criminal laws that are so expansive that most readers of this page have committed at one time or another felonies that could land them in prison -- yet were not even aware that they were breaking the law.

(The courts in Washington have ruled that every citizen is responsible for knowing every law and every regulation that comes out of the city. There are exceptions, however: prosecutors, judges, and the police do not have to know the law and are not punished when they break it, especially out of ignorance. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies only to those of us who are not employed carrying out the law.)

I agree that Wall Street has been out of control. This blog has long dealt with those issues regarding finance and the symbiotic relationship between Washington and the banks, but let us also keep in mind that both the Republicans and Democrats have seen Wall Street first and foremost as a cash cow for campaign contributions are are desperate to keep the spigots flowing.

Yet, when Wall Street goes over the cliff, Washington forces the rest of us to rescue the bankers instead of permitting people to bear the consequences of their own actions. But what is Krugman's "solution"? It is to expand the moral hazard that Washington creates, and to force taxpayers to pony up and finance disasters like Solyndra. (And Krugman has defended the Obama administration's funding of this firm, as has his employer, the NYT.)

So, let us be frank here. Paul Krugman is not against an "oligarchy." Indeed, he absolutely supports Washington becoming wealthier, and according to his Keynesian doctrines, the more Washington confiscates our wealth, the better off we are.

Sanity is Missing in Action, not the President

In his excoriation of President Obama in his recent column, Paul Krugman claims that if Obama would have stood up against the "radicalism" of the house, perhaps we might be on our way to economic nirvana:

...let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that $38 billion in spending cuts — and a much larger cut relative to his own budget proposals — was the best deal available. Even so, did Mr. Obama have to celebrate his defeat? Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face of high unemployment — cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment — are actually a good idea?

This falls into the "don't make me laugh" category. As Lew Rockwell recently wrote, there are no "cuts" in spending at all, despite the rhetoric:

In the first place, no one is talking about actual cuts, not even the supposedly radical Republicans. These are cuts in projected spending, meaning that everyone is dealing with symbolic changes in a future that is just as symbolic. Even on paper, the only way to consider these cuts is to compare them with the GDP and the national debt -- both of which are slated to rise. Forgetting those two metrics, and looking at the actual numbers, there are no cuts at all and only increases.

Even the dating of the Republican’s balanced budget is ridiculous. So the budget will be fully balanced in 2040? That’s three decades from now. Few of the people in office will still be in office, and many will be dead. To see how viable this is, consider how many political plans of the year 1982 still survive today.

I will go even further. Despite Krugman's constant claims that prosperity will return if the government throws enough new money around and if the highest marginal tax rates are raised from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, he is absolutely wrong.

The problem is not with "idle" resources; the problem lies in the fact that the Obama administration, along with the other Usual Suspects in Congress, academe, and the media, cannot recognize that there are huge swaths of malinvested resources still dragging down the economy. It does not matter how many dollars the government throws at housing; the government encouraged the wasting of billions of dollars for something that cannot be sustained in any normal market, and no one in authority still is willing to admit any mistakes.

To make matters worse, the Obama administration continues to insist that granting huge subsidies to corn-based ethanol and electric "wind farms" ("subsidy farms" is the more appropriate term) will help lead us out of the recession. Earth to Obama (and Krugman and the others): it is impossible to subsidize oneself into prosperity. Any benefits accrued to one party MUST be confiscated from another when subsidies are involved. An economy built upon subsidies is an economy that will continue to shrink.

Krugman still is of the belief that if the political classes pretend we are prosperous and throw enough money into the economy, then suddenly everything magically will rise and the prosperity train will be on the tracks. This is utterly delusional, but delusion seems to be the watchword at the NY Times and in Washington.