Leave it to Krugman to use smear tactics
to discredit Ron Paul's hearing on the Federal Reserve System. I put his post in full:
Mike Konczal has a post about Ron Paul’s first hearing on monetary policy, in which he points out that the lead witness is a big Lincoln-hater and defender of the Southern secession.
And it’s true! I went to his articles at Mises, and clicked more or less idly on the piece about American health care fascialism — I guess that’s supposed to be a milder term than fascism, although he seems to equate the two. And sure enough, he ends:
This is not likely to happen in the United States, which at the moment seems hell-bent on descending into the abyss of socialism. Once some states begin seceding from the new American fascialistic state, however, there will be opportunities to restore healthcare freedom within them.
I presume that Amity Shlaes is already working on her Lincoln assessment, The Even More Forgotten Man.
First, Tom DiLorenzo, who wrote the article that so offended Krugman, DOES make clear his use of "fascialism," writing:
Some time ago I invented the phrase "fascialism" to describe the American system of political economy. Fascialism means an economy is part fascist, part socialist. Economic fascism has nothing to do with dictatorship, militarism, or bizarre racial theories. Fascism is a brand of socialism that was the economic system of Germany and Italy in the early 20th century. It was characterized by private enterprise, but private enterprise that was comprehensively regulated and regimented by the state, ostensibly "in the public interest" (as arbitrarily defined by the state).
Socialism started out meaning government ownership of the means of production, but it came to mean egalitarianism promoted by "progressive" taxation and the institutions of the welfare state, as F.A. Hayek stated in the preface to the 1976 edition of The Road to Serfdom. The problems of the American healthcare system are caused entirely by the fact that the government subjects the system to massive interventions, some of which are fascist in nature, while others are socialist.
Second, what is Krugman really trying to say? He is trying to go in the backdoor to smear Rep. Paul with the following syllogism:
- Ron Paul has Tom DiLorenzo testifying at his hearing;
- Tom DiLorenzo has defended southern secession and has criticized Abraham Lincoln;
- Therefore, Ron Paul is a racist and anything he says about the Fed's behavior should be ignored.
Don't kid yourselves about what Krugman is doing. The guy has smeared Ron Paul in the past and now that Rep. Paul is taking aim at the Fed -- something that is in his right to do -- Krugman is going to unleash all barrels on him. And, I am sure that his employer, the NY Slimes, will follow suit.
I hereby declare total victory for the Austrian School.
Our opponents have nothing. Ever. That's why they engage in name-calling. They have nothing else.
Statists love Lincoln! When all else fails beat your opponent into submission, then wipe you hands clean on some 'just cause'.
History will forget the rape, pillage, and silly ideas about shipping all the black people back to Africa.
Ron Paul does not understand the monetary of the US. Someone should explain to him that we left the gold standard decades ago, government debt issuance is a monetary operation, not a fiscal one, and public deficits are necessary for private savings when the external balance is negative. Someone should explain to Ron Paul basic accounting, and force him to reprint a retraction to End the Fed. And if Ron Paul had any chutzpah, he would have invited Randall Wray or Warren Mosler to his little pow wow to destroy the economy instead of a bunch people that will agree with him and kiss up.
Ron Paul does not deserve to be smeared, but he deserves to be criticized for his lack of understanding of the monetary system of the US.
* Krugman writes for the NYT
* Other writer at the NYT write something about Duke lacrosse case that Anderson finds despicable
*Therefore Krugman approves and is evil because he works for the NYT
Does Tom DiLorenzo hate Lincoln? True
Has Tom DiLorenzo spoken in favor of the Southern secession? True
Where exactly does he smear Tom DiLorenzo?
Where exactly does he smear Tom DiLorenzo?
The title of the post is "Johnny Reb Economics".
The title suggests that the Austrian School is associated with and/or supports slavery. Krugman does this because he cannot otherwise refute Austrian Economics.
*Krugman refers to to economic ideas that refuse to die as zombie fallacies
*Krugman talks about politicians who use these these zombie fallacies
*Therefore, Krugman is actually calling these people ZOMBIES!!
*This is a smear
*Anderson thinks SS is like the Bernie Madoff debatable
*Krugman supports SS
*Therefore Krugman supports endorses Bernie Madoff
*This is somehow not a smear
More of Anderson's logic:
*Name of this blog: Krugman-in-Wonderland. Implies Krugman is not lucid and is on hallucinogens
*This is not smear
*Anderson says Krugman literally wants death panels
*This is not a smear
*Kruman thinks Obama is the Messiah
*This is not a smear
*Krugman praises "death panels" (calling them by that name) on ABC's "This Week."
*Krugman claims that Sarah Palin is lying when she says that government health care will have such panels.
*Conclusion: It is OK for Krugman to admit that death panels exist and that they are a good thing, but if anyone else says that term, then they are lying.
More proof of the Wonderland that is the NY Times and Washington.
Wasn't it Desolation Jones who cited "A Discussion with FVH" from 1975 quoting Hayek supporting more inflation to combat deflation?
Well, I spent $20 and bought the little booklet (the original price tag say $1.50). I'm not impressed. The quick recovery of 1920-1921 suggests that prices and wages aren't really "sticky". There's never an excuse for inflation. Without inflation, you'd never have deflation.
Hayek seems most worried that deflation might result in a Nazi putsch or something. I don't see it as an "economics" argument, but a practical politics argument. We'd better inflate or else economic illiterate barbarians might kill us.
@ AP Lerner -
Ron Paul does understand the US monetary system, and he understands that it is NOT working because we left the gold standard.
Someone should explain basic accounting to you, that when you spend more than you have now, you end up paying more later.
"Oh, work was great today, honey. My boss came in sober!"
Now, if my boss ALWAYS comes in sober, have I directly slandered him? Of course not. I didn't SAY that he was drunk after all. I said that he was sober!
We are not idiots, and neither is Krugman. Any middle schooler (even in our public school system) can easily parse out his meaning from what he wrote. The literal denotations of the words he chose never add up to "DiLorenzo is a racist". But his communicated meaning is precisely that DiLorenzo holds political-historical views that render his unrelated economic views not worth taking seriously.
This doesn't even need to be pointed out, in that no reasonable person needs to have it explained to them. But for those here who somehow think that they are getting away with such despicable smearing behavior, it is important that someone at least make it clear that no, you're not. We KNOW what you are doing. Now go back to your usual habitations and congratulate yourselves on being the only sane people in the room. Don't worry about the train that is coming, and that will sweep your ideology away with it. It's a fantasy-come-true for you to go down with the ship, arguing to the bitter-end that just because the hull, cabin, and deck are flooded with water and the ship is tilted at a rather-vertical angle to the water, that still doesn't mean that we're actually sinking.
Have fun with that. There will always be a few folks like you, no matter what else happens. But your ability to control the debate is done.
If criticism of Lincoln's horrid "Union" government, and support for the Confederacy, at least to the extent of their independence, is the hallmark of a "racist", then maybe being a "racist" at least according to Lincolnphiles like Krugman, may not even be the worst thing in the world to be!
It certainly wasn't the Confederacy, still less "racists", whatever their sins elsewhere, that set the precedents for the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the mass exile and arrest of domestic critics, 'perpetual war for perpetual peace' and foisting the beginnings of Central Banking, the infamy of the Income tax,and the "war-on-drugs" starting with Harrison Narcotics act, and later the nightmare of Prohibition, on the rest of us since 1913!
It wasn't the Confederacy after all, or even their sympathizers or revivalists in the XX century, who pursued appalling economic, educational, military, and fiscal policies which turned the USSA-the United Socialist States of America--into a latter day replica of imperial Rome c.450AD!
"Progressive" thinkers and writers like Krugman are far worse than "racists" here!
The KKK and their ilk were no comedy show, to be sure; but for REAL destruction, modern 'liberals' and social democrats take home the Blue Ribbons every time!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
PS-While there has to be something wrong with someone who would hate another person only because of his genetic heritage, I would trust a country's future to a "racist" over the likes of Krugman--or Keynes--anytime!DKM
No matter the subject matter, Krugman simply cannot deal directly with libertarian arguments. He smears the Austrian position by smearing the anti-Lincoln position. He has failed to address either with facts or argument.
That is why this blog is called "Krugman in Wonderland". It is not a smear to explore and examine the kind of person Krugman really is.
Anderson, you deny smearing Krugman by saying that Krugman endorses Madoff and fleecing billions of dollars of people.
"Hmmm. I looked up the Bernie Madoff post, which was tongue-in-cheek for Krugman's support of Social Security which, like Madoff's schemes, is based upon the Ponzi Pyramid."
Krugman also obviously said "Death Panel" in a tongue-in-cheek way and even explained exactly what he meant in the interview (along with a blog post devoted to it). Yet in your head, KRUGMAN SUPPORTS DEATH PANELS AND WANTS TO KILL GRANDMA!
re: Death Panels
Even Krugman knows that without prices, scarce services will necessarily be the subject of bureaucratic decree. This is just another baseless topic for clueless statists to fuss about.
You should purchase the Quebec film "Barbarian Invasions" where we see the wonders of bureaucratic medicine. The rich son of a dying left wing professor takes him to Vermont for a scan unavailable in Canuckistan and then basically bribes/buys him his own floor in the hospital.
There's no conceivable statist argument here.
Notice that the first comment on Krugman's blog says:
"Equating Fascism and Socialism seems to be all the rage now, and yet, they two political ideologies could not be farther apart on the political spectrum..."
What spectrum is he talking about? Surely he isn't talking about the spectrum of freedom vs. serfdom.
On THAT spectrum they are kissing cousins.
Bob, discussing economics is great. I can't remember the last time Anderson wrote about economics though. Anderson likes to talk about Krugman's rhetoric with more rhetoric of his own. There's zero economic analysis here. If you want to talk about economics, I suggest you go elsewhere. This blog is about discussing rhetoric. You're in the wrong place!
Note that DiLorenzo in his linked article immediately explains how and why he created that term. Commies never understand the co-mingled history of socialism and fascism.
It is really creepy how opponents of the Austrian School have nothing. Ever. And they never demonstrate any shame in trumpeting their cluelessness.
Discussing economics--the science of human action and human choice--is very difficult when an "economist" in question--Paul Krugman--insists that, for starters, one can borrow one's way out of debt, that government (or central bank) issue of fiat 'money", NOT the utility of coins used for exchange, gives value to money, that and that spending--rather than saving--creates prosperity and opportunity!
If Mr. Anderson doesn't discuss economics here as much as some people would like him to, take it up with Dr. Krugman!
He only gets in our way every chance he gets, whether it is with his irresponsible advocacy of Obamacare, egregious cap-and-trade tax proposals, the Global Warming hoax, Ron Paul's efforts at exposing the Fed or anything else!
This site is about him, his ignorance, and the political foolishness he advocates; HE never discusses economics, only his Keynsian fantasies cited above, and what Anderson does here, is to simply acknowledge these dismaying facts on this website!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
I don't understand Rep. Clay's confusion... how can he not know he is part of a vast criminal organization? Maybe he is just ignorant, but that is hardly a positive.
I voted for Ron Paul in the fla primary but i don't ALWAYS blindly support him-I've done my homework. I like the audit & more transparency but think if you look carefully at history returning to the gold standard looks be a net negative for American power. If we just stopped the unfunded liabilities game Created mostly be 2 wars & the Bush Medicare expansion, most of our finance issues would disappear. If our policy favored new industry and ideas over oligarchical monopolistic businesses, jobs would appear. Instead we're busy screaming about ideology and the other side being wrong or evil.
All hail the Krugtard!
And one thing about DiLorenzo is that if anyone has read pretty much any of his writing he is constantly citing his sources.
I made two comments on the post at the NYT:
If you want to read something scary, read the majority of the others’ comments. These utter imbeciles haven’t the slightest knowledge of Austrian theory nor Lincoln and Civil War history. But they KNOW everything.
The bad news is that those morons are incurable and will never be reached. The good news is that they will never be able to mount any type of credible intellectual opposition to the forces of truth, honor, morality and civilization (us).
Hey Bob ever occur to you that you're the narcissistic moron that knows everything? Do you ever get bored not listening to any other points of view other than some guy that died nearly a century ago? Did it ever occur to you to blame yourself for your miserable existence?
Let me guess, you're some kind of single, lonely guy, living somewhere in the mid-west or some small town that never became a big town. You had a crush on the prom queen who blew you off and then ran off with an investment banker that in high school could not string two sentances together but now makes millions. You're likely a lawyer or some how involved with the legal system. You hate your job because your co-workers are intellectually inferior to you. You can't figure why you can't get ahead in life while others pass you by, so you blame the bogey man, ahem, the government since it is evil and out to get honest, hard working guys like you. The mere existence of someone as successful, rich, looked up to, and liberal as Krugman pains you to the core because you want to be someone just as rich, just as successful, and just as respected, and equally conservative, but that damn government just keeps sneaking up on you to snatch what little you have.
Bob, if your life is so miserable, stop posting on blogs so much, and try working a little harder. Maybe if you worked as hard at your day job as you do utterly disrespecting people you do not know, you may make something of your life.
Those of you complaining about the inclusion of some politics in these types of discussions fail to acknowledge that the only place “pure” economics takes place is in the academic classroom. And that’s only if the professor is intellectually honest. In the real world politics and economics are conjoined.
If you want to personally attack Bob I suppose that’s your prerogative. But you should at least have courage use your name and not ANONYMOUS. Thanks for an empty contribution to the forum.
Comments are up on Krugman's blog now, and they are priceless.
Your little hit piece on Bob was way out of bounds. You probably don’t know anything about him. The man believes in liberty and economic freedom unlike statists like Krugman and other Keynesian Morons that can be a cheerleader for the government and get published in the NYT for. Sad thing is other statists lap up what he writes and regurgitate his talking points in political discussions across the country, further confusing others who are unfortunate enough to hear this claptrap. Of course when they encounter an articulate libertarian grounded in the Austrian school, they tend to shit their pants., Bob is right, the statists have nothing. Ever. Arguing with statists is like watching a 10 year old girl throw a football with her left hand. Pathetic .
I'm glad that my request to our opponents for some solid attempts at refuting Austrian theory and/or Civil War revisionism have met with such success so quickly.
Pater Tenebrarum provides a long and thoughtful examination of the deflation theories of Vijay Boyapati here:
"Johnny Reb economics"? That would imply a support for the economic system of chattel slavery. Heck, no one does that. Now if he meant Johnny Reb politics, then he implies that anyone who support the idea of secession supports slavery, which is nonsense. Aside from actually reading DiLorenzo"s writing, does Krugman equate secession with slaver? Has every secession movement in the world supported slavery? The basic principle behind secession is that they no longer wish to be governed by their respective government, so many possible reasons exist for supporting secession. Krugman is sloppy here for a reason.
Sometimes, secession isn’t hip with the powers-that-be. Like Katanga Province and the Congo in 1961:
Other times, secession is hip with the powers-that-be, like East Pakistan breaking from West Pakistan:
Obviously, secession over ObamaCare isn’t hip with the powers-that-be.
Fairness, morality and justice rarely enter into the formulation of whether a particular attempt at secession is going to be deemed hip.
For all the social sciences and humanities, analysis of rhetoric is probably the most cogent way to study the foundational assumptions.
FYI, Lila Rajiva is the author of “The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media”.
I had followed her blog since 2009 and recently purchased her book. I’ve read about 30 pages and it sits on my nightstand as the next book I plan to read. I see many similarities between the selling of the Iraq war (and all US interventions) with the selling of The Fed and the smearing of Fed opponents.
DiLorenzo, Ron Paul's witness, was sharply criticized in the hearing for his whacky views on Abraham Lincoln, secession, etc. not on epistemological views. Here's the Washington Post summary:
"Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) directly took on DiLorenzo for his membership in the League of the South, an organization that has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "neo-Confederate" hate group advocating for Southern secession.
Clay then rattled off a list of some of DiLorenzo's articles, including "More Lies about the Civil War," "In Defense of Sedition," and "The First Dictator-President," which examines "how Lincoln's myth has corrupted America."
"After reviewing your work and the so-called methods you employ, I still cannot understand you being invited to testify today on the unemployment crisis, but I do know that I have no questions for you," Clay concluded.
oh, and by all means, please secede. We'll let you go this time.
As long as we're in the name-calling mode.......
Clearly, you Lincoln lovers must love and be personally responsible for Abe’s support for the Corwin Amendment:
“Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the United States Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin offered the amendment during the closing days of the Second Session of the 36th Congress in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, including "persons held to labor or service" (a reference to slavery).
Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, supported the Corwin Amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment.”
I wonder why we never heard of that back in 2nd grade.
And, of course, you must love and support the efforts of Abe “Ship ‘em back” Lincoln to ship the freed blacks out of the country ASAP, right up until the end of his life:
Colonization after Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement explores the previously unknown truth about Lincoln’s attitude toward colonization. Scholars Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page combed through extensive archival materials, finding evidence, particularly within British Colonial and Foreign Office documents, which exposes what history has neglected to reveal—that Lincoln continued to pursue colonization for close to a year after emancipation.
You people have no shame. Truly.
What's funny is after it was politely pointed out that DiLorenzo had no business testifying at this hearing, Pauls response was:
"Paul said he was unfamiliar with that side of DiLorenzo's work."
and proceeded to say
"I think that that's typical of people who can't compete on ideas, they have to try to discredit the individual,"
and then he proceeded to resort to childish name calling by calling Bernanke cocky. He would fit in on this blog with that kind of narrow minded, childish, baseless, and nonsensical response. Enjoy your 5 minutes of fame Dr. Paul. You have no ideas; just ignorance
BTW - You find a job yet Bob?
I am a bystander; I do not know much economics, Keynesian of Austrian. I am like a patient suffering from a rare cancer. I have consulted two doctors. "Ivy League" doctor is arrogant and condescending; he enjoys obfuscation and talking down to me. He says I need disfiguring surgery and takes offense at my questions. "Cow College" doctor welcomes my questions and explains his recommendation and his reasoning clearly. He says chemotherapy is just as effective as disfiguring surgery. I would rather die than go with "Ivy League" doctor.
I would rather my country die than follow Krugman and his ilk.
From the very Rothbardian Justin Raimondo today at antiwar.com:
“Amid all the brouhaha about how the downfall of Hosni Mubarak would provide the oh-so-scary Muslim Brotherhood with an opening to create an Islamic theocracy along Iranian lines, take a look at what’s happening in US-occupied Iraq:
The Iraqi Ministry of Education has banned theatre and music classes in Baghdad’s Fine Arts Institute, and ordered the removal of statues showcased at the entrance of the institute without explaining the move, but some of the students mull religious reasons as the real motive. ‘Students have also fears that the ban will extend to include other arts such as photography, directing, sculpting, and drawing.’”
Thus, as a result of our “liberation” of Iraq, it is becoming an Islamic theocracy. The usual neo-con smear of Iraq war opponents was that they loved Saddam. Criticize the new Iraqi Islamic theocracy and you love Saddam? This same form of smear is being employed against DiLorenzo and Ron Paul. It’s pathetic.
"He would fit in on this blog with that kind of narrow minded, childish, baseless, and nonsensical response. "
"BTW - You find a job yet Bob? "
narrow minded, childish, baseless, and nonsensical responses seemed to increase substantially since you started commenting
Just to throw some fuel on the fire. The term Civil War is a misnomer for our incident here in the States. A civil war is two sides fighting over control of a central government. The South didn’t want to control Washington DC, they wanted to leave. Thus it was a war of succession.
Ron Paul once again exposes his ignorance on monetary policy.
>Paul appeared to be winging it as he sat behind the nameplate labeled "Mr. Paul, chairman." When it came time to give his opening statement, he took off his reading glasses and ad-libbed. "We probably have pumped in $4 trillion" to the economy, he complained. "I imagine we could've given everybody 60-, 70-, maybe $100,000 - I haven't done the calculations - just give 'em the money and we would've been better off."
Jesus Christ, Ron Paul just said we would be better off if the fed just printed and literally gave $100,000 to every single person in the US. Talk about hyperinflation. This further proves that Ron Paul does not understand how open market operations work nor how how to distinguish between the money supply, excess reserves, and the monetary base.
Good post Joe. This is the beginning of the end of Ron Paul. He can't even get basic statistic correct, much less understand how the Fed operates. Ever read End the Fed? A lesson is ignorance.
Some people think the SPLC itself mongers hate.
Let's just say that all groups have their "hates" but some hate is less equal than others.
Anonymous said: “Ever read End the Fed? A lesson is ignorance.”
Really? Or did you just not understand it?
Why don’t you write a book so you can enlighten us mere mortals who are intellectuality inferior in the ways of honest money.
I'm still turning purple holding my breath waiting for some (any!) Austrian School critic to demonstrate the slightest familiarity with basic Austrian School concepts.
"I'm still turning purple holding my breath waiting for some (any!) Austrian School critic to demonstrate the slightest familiarity with basic Austrian School concepts"
Bob, I'm sure you've read Bill Woolsey before. Check out his blog. He has a number of critisms.
I did read some of Woolsey's stuff in favor of "the printing money" by "The Ben Bernank". He was all over Bob Murphy's blog last week. He did manage a substanceless insult of me as an infantile Rothbardian or something, but I didn't see anything from him on acting man, subjective value or economic calculation. No one ever wants to go there because they will lose.
You find it. I'll read it.
I've quickly read those Woolsey posts. He doesn't mention basic Austrian CONCEPTS, but does examine the ABCT. I think he's totally wrong on the ABCT, and I will try to respond to that in the next few days.
Here's Krugman's column this morning:
Apparently, Tom DiLorenzo now controls the evil Republican Party (which suddenly turned into the party of hard money) and wants to raise the rebel flag over the South again!
How can anybody take Krugman seriously?
Dilorenzo explains himself today:
Here's a wonderful youtube of Lacy Clay in action. BTW, DiLorenzo once spoke to the League of the South something like 13 years ago and is not a member.
You cite a Richard Carpenter:
You mean the keyboardist with his sister Karen who died from anorexia? Is that who you admire enough to post a long quote of his?
Remember everyone in the government that lied to you.
Remember everyone in the media that lied to you.
thanks for sharing this content.
Post a Comment