Is Paul Krugman Really a Martyr?

Paul Krugman operates with numerous themes, although for the most part they revolve around his belief that (1) the U.S. economy is in a "liquidity trap," and (2) government must spend, borrow, raise taxes (ostensibly to seize "idle" money holdings), print money, and spend some more. Anyone who does not agree, according to Krugman, is not worthy of existence and certainly should not be allowed to make any public utterances.

(The Austrians, in Krugman's view, are nothing more than an evil cult who apparently are trying to foist things like the Law of Scarcity and Marginal Utility -- What? Marginal Utility? -- upon the world. Everyone but the Austrians knows that government can create prosperity by printing and borrowing.)

Lately, however, Krugman has fastened himself to another theme: Paul Krugman, martyr. Yes, Krugman is fashioning himself as the Lonely Voice In The Wilderness, the ignored prophet, the abused Holy Man, and now the Last Hippie (or at least until Ben Bernanke testified to Congress that showering the world with freshly-printed dollars was sound economic policy -- that made Bernanke an Honored Hippie).

To be honest, I find this amusing. Martyrs do not receive Nobel Prizes, nor do Sunday television news shows compete literally every week for the man's appearance. Nor do martyrs make millions of dollars a year, and martyrs certainly do not have positions on a faculty of one of the world's top-ranted universities.

What Krugman seems to mean is that if anyone -- Anyone -- publicly criticizes what he is saying, then whoever had the temerity to utter such blasphemies also has inflicted a grievous wound upon The Great One and has thrown him into the pit of martyrdom. Those who refuse to believe in the Inflation Fairy or who would deny that governments can create more wealth by forcing up real costs have no place in the discussion of economics.

Joseph Salerno on Bernanke's Asset Bubbles

While I realize that Paul Krugman insists that only "unregulated" markets can create asset bubbles (and that government plays no role in creating them), Joseph Salerno begs to differ, saying that the U.S. Government and its Federal Reserve System is "addicted" to a bubble economy.

Helicopter Ben Runs Out of Ideas for Creating Money

Ben Bernanke confided on January 14 that he is unaware of any new method of stimulating economic growth. Bernanke said: “As far as I’m aware, there’s no completely new method that we haven’t [already tapped].” So Helicopter Ben has run out of innovative and unconventional ways to create new money. Lest you be tempted to breathe a bit easier, however, rest assured that the now conventional method of quantitative easing, involving the Fed’s monthly purchase of $85 billion worth of mortgage-backed and U.S. government securities, seems to be working just fine according to Bernanke and he foresees its continuation. Noting the stubbornly high unemployment rate combined with the low inflation rate in the U.S. economy, Bernanke stated, “That is the case for being aggressive, which we are trying to do.” Although he is “cautiously optimistic,” he does promise to closely monitor the risks, efficacy, costs, and benefits of this inflationary policy.

I guess the rapid asset price run-up in stock and commodities markets, which are nearly back to financial bubble levels, and booming farmland prices do not count in Bernanke’s benefit-cost calculus. More likely, Bernanke accounts them as a benefit, which, via the “wealth effect,” will induce another debt-driven consumption spree on the part of the American public that will stimulate economic growth, i.e., create another bubble economy.

Read the Entire Article Here

Ben Bernanke, Inflationist

Hail, Ben Bernanke! He has received praise from on high, or at least from someone on the Princeton faculty (lavishing accolades upon the former chair of the economics department). Paul Krugman has taken notice that Bernanke isn't about to be the skunk at the party. No, Uncle Ben wants us and our government to spend as though there is no tomorrow. (And with Bernanke running things at the Fed, there very well might not be a tomorrow.)

Krugman compares Bernanke's call for more inflation and expansion of government spending with the earlier opposition some people had to the war in Iraq. (The idea here is that having the courage to speak out against a war in its early stages when the war was popular is the same as having the "courage" to call for the Fed to print more money.)

That's right. Krugman wants us to believe that it takes real courage for someone to demand that the government pretend as though the economy is doing well by borrowing, taxing, printing, and, of course, spending. (Of course, wars entail government spending, lots of government spending, so how could a Keynesian be against that?) Yes, yes, Ben Bernanke also believes in the Inflation Fairy.

In reading Krugman and now Bernanke, I have come to understand that these men see no downside at all in runaway government spending. There is no transfer of wealth from individuals to the state and then to politically-connected people; no. government spending in and of itself creates wealth. Thus, when governments spend money, they actually are producing consumption (or something like that).

Krugman gives all of the usual accolades to government spending (We don't have near enough of it), but my favorite portion of his column is what follows:

The point is not that Mr. Bernanke is an unimpeachable source of wisdom; one hopes that the collapse of Alan Greenspan’s reputation has put an end to the practice of deifying Fed chairmen. Mr. Bernanke is a fine economist, but no more so than, say, Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and legendary economic theorist whose vocal criticism of our deficit obsession has nonetheless been ignored. No, the point is that Mr. Bernanke’s apostasy may help undermine the argument from authority — nobody who matters disagrees! — that has made the elite obsession with deficits so hard to dislodge.

And an end to deficit obsession can’t come a moment too soon. Right now Washington is focused on the idiocy of the sequester, but this is only the latest episode in an unprecedented run of declines in public employment and government purchases that have crippled our economy’s recovery. A misguided elite consensus has led us into an economic quagmire, and it’s time for us to get out.

So,there you have it. The CAUSE of the current economic malaise is the lack of government spending. Now, since government spending comes the wealth government confiscates from private individuals who actually produce it might lead us to think that the reason government spending is not as high as Krugman wants it to be is that the economy is depressed. If the economy were doing better, government would be able to take more in taxes and, thus, increase its spending.

In Wonderland, however, things are backward. Government spending creates the wealth that comes from private firms. The more government spends, borrows, prints, and takes in taxes, the wealthier all of us become. Why? Because Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, and now Ben Bernanke tell us that is so.

Is the Fed Hampering the Recovery?

In his blog post on "Calvinist Monetary Economics," Paul Krugman claims that a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by John Taylor on why he believes the Fed is hampering the recovery by keeping interest rates low falls into the "Calvinball" category. Writes Krugman:

For those who don’t read the classics, Calvinball is a sport in which you change the rules whenever you feel like it, very much including in the middle of games.

Back then the tight-money types were inventing new and peculiar principles of monetary policy on the fly; it was obvious that they were looking for some reason, any reason, to justify a rise in rates, because, well, because.

Krugman goes on:

Now Taylor is doing the same thing. He claims that he can show that the Fed’s low-rate policy is actually contractionary, using “basic microeconomic analysis”. Actually, as Miles Kimball points out, he’s committing a basic microeconomic fallacy — a fallacy you usually identify with Econ 101 freshmen early in the semester (and as it happens the same fallacy committed by Rajan).

For Taylor argues that low rates engineered by the Fed are just like a price ceiling that reduces the supply of loans, and therefore reduces overall lending.

Wow. No, the Fed’s interest rate target isn’t a price control; there is no legal or other restraint on the rates lenders can charge. The Fed is driving down interest rates, or equivalently driving up the price of bonds, by buying bonds; I can’t think of any kind of economic analysis in which that would reduce the quantity of bonds sellers end up issuing, that is, the amount of borrowing (and lending) in the economy.

 I'll put all of this controversy in the simplest of terms: Keynesian orthodoxy claims that lower interest rates will always have a positive effect upon the economy because the low rates encourage more borrowing, ceteris paribus, even in a so-called liquidity trap. The issue of the "liquidity trap," according to Keynesians, is that other factors are holding back "aggregate demand" so that lowering rates by themselves cannot create enough aggregate demand to lift the economy out of a downturn.

That is where fiscal policy comes in, and that is what Krugman has been saying. Thus, anyone who might claim that attempts by the Fed to push down interest rates might have an opposite effect of what is intended is playing "Calvinball."

The Keynesian approach is pretty straightforward, maybe even crude. All economic activity of an economy, all of the relative prices, all of the relations of production, the products creates, everything, can be put into two functions, aggregate demand and aggregate supply. Push aggregate demand to the right, and as long as the AS curve in not in its steep region, economic growth will occur without too much inflation.

Should the economy be in a "liquidity trap," then the only way to get the AD curve to move to the right is for government to engage in lots and lots of spending. The positive results from the spending then will trickle down to everyone else, provided government spends "enough." However, as Bob Murphy has noted, it seems that Krugman is playing some "Calvinball" of his own:

Here is my observation: Paul Krugman will say that government spending has surged under Obama (and Bernanke has engaged in monetary stimulus) when he wants to blow up right-wingers for their failed predictions, yet referring to the same period of time he will say that government spending has actually been either normal or even contractionary, when explaining why his Keynesian solutions haven’t fixed the economy.

 Certainly, Krugman is not above using the "Heads I win, tails you lose," method of arguing. However, I'd like to address a larger question: Can the Fed's "expansionary policies" actually have a contractionary effect upon the economy?

I'd like to take a different approach than has Taylor and point out that the Fed's purchases of securities of all types -- government, mortgage securities, private assets -- is done in order to keep the asset prices high and send false signals to the markets that these securities are worth more than they really are. (The only word for it is fraud and I should point out that when someone in private business, as opposed to Ben Bernanke, tries to artificially jack up the price of securities, he is likely to be prosecuted.)

The Fed wants to drive money toward those assets by keeping their prices artificially high, and I would argue this has two problems that do hamper the economy:

• First, it prevents the needed liquidation of those assets which cannot be supported by market activity so that investors and entrepreneurs can follow real price signals to see where lines of sustainable investments are located. By throwing in what essentially are false prices, the Fed is making it harder for entrepreneurs to find the suitable production lines;

• Second, the Fed's policies discourage savings (which makes Keynesians very happy, given their vaunted "multiplier" is 1 over the savings rate, so the less we save, the greater the "multiplier"), as real savings provide the liquid capital for long-term investments.

Given Krugman's mechanistic views of the economy and his overt hostility toward economic activity that is not created by government fiat, I doubt what I have said would convince Keynesians of anything. To them, the economy is a simple thing controlled by levers of spending with the Really Smart People in Washington and at Princeton knowing at all times when to "step on the gas" and "when to apply the brakes."

Nonetheless, I also would argue that the Fed is holding back the recovery, even as it acts in the name of "aggregate demand." This isn't "Calvinball." It is economics.

The Prophecy Game

If Americans today did what Israelites were commanded to do back in Bible times -- stone false prophets to death -- there would be a lot of dead economists, and that would include Paul Krugman. Krugman has been wrong in the past (claiming that if Japan borrowed and spent enough money during the 1990s, that it would come out of its economic funk, with Japan doing the former but the latter not occuring), but he also knows that a good defense is a good offense.

Thus, he centers on an editorial that is more than three years old to claim that EVERYONE who might disagree with his wisdom is a false prophet. No, he doesn't want them stoned to death, just removed from any meaningful social contact with anyone. His theme is simple: anyone who predicted that the massive expansion of the Fed's balance sheets and attempts to monetize U.S. debt and deficits would lead to an increase in interest rates is an idiot:

...we cannot and will not persuade these people to reconsider their views in the light of the evidence. All we can do is stop paying attention. It’s going to be difficult, because many members of the deficit cult seem highly respectable. But they’ve been hugely, absurdly wrong for years on end, and it’s time to stop taking them seriously.

 Krugman points out that as long "as the economy is depressed," interest rates will remain low. Unfortunately, he wants to claim that this is a market phenomenon instead of something that is being done by Ben Bernanke, an effect of the bad economy. Yet, what should help revive the economy? You guessed it: low interest rates.

So, what is it? Are interest rates an effect of a bad economy, or do they ward off a bad economy? There is a problem of causality, as Krugman wants it both ways. We shall see in the coming year what actually happens. If Krugman is correct, the government's vast intervention into the economy is finally going to bear real fruit, as most sectors will rebound nicely and President Obama will have that real recovery that he deserves.

On the other hand, Krugman has been wrong before, not that he ever admits it. The Krugman paradigm is this: when the economy is depressed, government should suppress interest rates, create lots of new money, try to initiate inflation, and then borrow and spend lots of money. This will bring about a real recovery.

Since the financial crisis became painfully obvious in 2008 (and, really, more than a year before that), government has done all of these things, including bailing out banks, financial houses, and much of the domestic auto industry. The Fed's balance sheet has grown exponentially, and it seems that if nothing else, Bernanke is hellbent on making sure that no big bank goes out of business.

On the other hand, the real economy is not doing so well. If we see the kind of recovery Krugman predicts in the next four years, then Krugman will be able to claim victory, although he has a habit of claiming victory even when he is wrong. The problem is that, like most Progressives, he believes that leftist government is so magical that it can do away with the Law of Opportunity Cost by printing money.

I don't believe that economics is an "empirical" science. Instead, economic theory must submit to the laws of nature, not the laws made up by a British sexual pervert. That means a priori, and anything else is metaphysics, as far as I am concerned. So, we shall see in the end who is the false prophet.

Neither Structure nor Aggregate Demand

The Paul Krugman theme over the past four years have been pretty consistent and, to be honest, easy to understand. Economies around the world, including our own, are hampered by a lack of what he calls "aggregate demand," or a lack of overall spending, and until those reactionaries and members of Goldstein's Army (the Very Serious People) are vanquished, economic stagnation will remain the norm.

In the Krugman view, there are two competing philosophies. The first is the Keynesian way of thinking, which is promoted by the Good People. The second is the "Structural Unemployment" group, which is run by monsters and worshipers of Goldstein. Since the Keynesian viewpoint is obvious in terms of accuracy and truth, the only reason others would hold to another way of thinking is because they are evil and enjoy watching others suffer.

There are some people, however, who hold to the "structural" view and at least Krugman is charitable toward Edward Lazear, who presented a paper at the recent Fed conference at Jackson Hole. Apparently, Lazear is an exception to the Krugman rule that anyone who disagrees with the Keynesian thesis is evil; Lazear only is misguided.

But what if there is a third theory out there, one that examines demand from a different point of view, and instead of saying that there is a mismatch between individuals and the jobs available lays the current mess at the feet of massive malinvestments that became exposed in 2007 and 2008, and then have grown in the intervening years, thanks to government spending and regulation. Yes, Krugman refers to the third view, the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle as nonsense and then mislabels it a "hangover theory."

With all respect to Pete Boettke and the "Coordination Problem" group, the current situation in the economy is a classic Austrian example. The "structure" and "coordination" people do have a short-run point. That is, after the original set of malinvestments are exposed and abandoned, then there would be a short period of higher unemployment when the factors of production, including labor, are re-directed away from the malinvestments and toward those lines of production that would be profitable.

(In the classic Austrian view, the malinvestments generally occur in the lines of capital goods and away from consumer goods, as there is a "mismatch" between interest rates and the general time preferences of individuals, the "mismatched" caused by government or central bank intervention. The recession is the time when the factors are redirected to more profitable uses in line with individual time preferences within the economy. During that time, there are both "mismatches" and issues of coordination between labor and other factors.)

I agree with Krugman that the current situation is not in the "mismatch" camp, although even he admits that in the early days after the meltdown of 2008 there was some "mismatch" evidence. However, where Krugman and I part ways (if we ever were on the same path at all) has been government and Fed policies since that fateful September 2008. Krugman holds that government has not spent enough, regulated enough, or bullied enough, and that if Washington engaged in massive new spending schemes, such as preparing for imaginary "space aliens," all would be well.

The Austrians, on the other hand, believe that far from cleaning up the original mess, Washington simply made the mess even bigger. Keynesians, after all, do not believe that booms are periods when resources are pushed in the wrong direction and cannot be sustained. Instead, they believe that as long as government pours money into the economy, the boom can be sustained indefinitely. In fact, Keynesians hold that unless government ratchets up the spending, the economy will be mired permanently in depression because a market economy always moves toward under-consumption and stagnation.

In Keynes's view -- which coincides with Krugman's -- market economies (and especially the more complex and prosperous ones) are inherently flawed. Writes John H. Williams in a 1948 review of The General Theory:

It was not a coincidence, or a misinterpretation of Keynes, that the first great development of the theory by his disciples was the stagnation thesis, that the war was regarded as a superlative demonstration of what could be accomplished to sustain employment by a really adequate volume of effective demand, and that the weight of expectation of Keynesian economists was that we would relapse after the war into mass unemployment unless vigorous antideflation measures were pursued. There is no better short statement of the stagnation thesis than that given by Keynes: “The richer the community, the wider will tend to be the gap between its actual and its potential production; and therefore the more obvious and outrageous the defects of the economic system…. Not only is the marginal propensity to consume weaker in a wealthy community, but, owing to its accumulation of capital being already larger, the opportunities for further investment are less attractive.”

Thus, wealth led to poverty because wealthier people were likely to save more, which would cause "aggregate demand" to spiral downward. It was as inevitable as a sunrise following early morning darkness.

Yet, let us count the ways that the government has intervened in this recession to turn it into a full-blown depression. First, the government has both pushed easy money policies AND pushed strict regulations against private lenders (while simultaneously trying to make lending easier in housing). Far from letting the worst of the malinvestments be permitted to be closed out, the government has tried to keep them going, using vast amount of resources in the process.

Second, it has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into "green energy" subsidies that are malinvestments on their faces. Government attempts to create electricity through wind and solar and has pushed inferior fuels such as ethanol that are much more costly than conventional methods and fuels, which means that hundreds of billions of private and tax dollars have been funneled into lines of production that are not and cannot be sustainable unless government intervenes even more and makes conventionally-produced electricity either illegal or so costly that only then puts the "alternative" sources on a level playing field. Some playing field.

Third, the Obama administration has continued the unwise bailout programs of the Bush administration, including the rewriting of contracts when it created "Government Motors." (I have no doubt that Bush, had he been in office, would have done the same thing, and it would have been the wrong thing.)

Keynesians believe that once resources become unemployed, they cannot become employed again in a market economy unless government intervenes first. That it is not true and history bears out that fact means nothing. After all, Keynesianism is a theory in which government intervention always is the solution.

Heading for double-digit inflation?

Whenever someone mentions inflation, Paul Krugman is all over the statement, trotting out the CPI which shows relatively low overall price increases at about three percent. (He holds this as "proof" that government can massively increase the monetary base and spread dollars around without having any ill economic effects.)

However, those of us who regularly go grocery shopping and who purchase fuel have seen a much different picture, one that Krugman claims does not exist. And now there is more proof that inflation is worse than what the government and its political operatives (like Krugman) have been claiming:

Forget the modest 3.1 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index, the government's widely used measure of inflation. Everyday prices are up some 8 percent over the past year, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

The not-for-profit research group measures inflation without looking at the big, one-time purchases that can skew the numbers. That means they don't look at the price of houses, furniture, appliances, cars, or computers. Instead, AIER focuses on Americans' typical daily purchases, such as food, gasoline, child care, prescription drugs, phone and television service, and other household products.

The institute contends that to get a good read on inflation's "sticker shock" effect, you must look at the cost of goods that the average household buys at least once a month and factor in only the kinds of expenses that are subject to change. That, too, eliminates the cost of housing because when you finance your home with a fixed-rate mortgage, that expense remains constant until you refinance or move.

The article continues:

The group maintains that this index better measures the real-world impact of price changes, particularly for people on a budget. And, largely as the result of the recent run-up in gas prices, this "everyday price index" (EPI) suggests that Americans are being pinched far more tightly than the official inflation measure would have you believe.

Over the past year, the EPI is up just over 8 percent, according to the economics group. The biggest factor: Motor fuel and transportation costs are up 21.06 percent from year-ago levels. The cost of food, prescription drugs, and tobacco also have increased faster than the government's inflation measure, rising 3.56 percent, 4.21 percent, and 3.4 percent, respectively.

In other words, the daily purchases definitely are in the crosshairs of inflation, and I only can imagine that things will get worse. Krugman likes to claim that commodity prices are "volatile," which supposedly explains why they have skyrocketed. It would have nothing to do with Ben Bernanke's policies at the Fed.

Of course, let us be honest. The only think in the end that Keynesians have is inflation, and they believe that if the government inflates enough, somehow this will "rescue" the economy. Yes, reducing real incomes of Americans by creating more dollars somehow is going to "strengthen" the economy. Right.

Do you want to protest at Ground Zero for our current economic ills? Then Occupy Princeton!!

After reading Paul Krugman's latest anti-Wall Street screed, I have decided that I agree with him on principle: We need to occupy the place that is more responsible not only for the financial meltdown, but for the world depression that has followed it.

That's right, I am calling for an immediate occupation of...Princeton University, and specifically, its economics department. There is no other place on earth that has given us more players and more enablers of the financial madness that has gripped this economy for many years.

First, the chief architect of the depression, Ben Bernanke, was the chair of Princeton's economics department, and it was on his watch that Krugman was hired at Princeton away from MIT, Krugman's doctoral alma mater. Bernanke then went on to a position on the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors and help create the inflationary policies that followed in the wake of the Tech Bubble of the Bill Clinton years and then the Housing Bubble.

Bernanke always has been a champion of inflation, and one of his first speeches as a Fed governor, "Deflation: Making Sure it Doesn't Happy Here," set out the infamous "Bernanke Doctrine" which claims that inflation can be a cure-all for economic ills. (He and Krugman are of one mind on this subject, as both consider government-generated "money" to be a "free lunch" on which everyone can feast.)

Let us not forget where the "Bernanke Doctrine" (and its predecessor, the "Greenspan Doctrine") has led. If I can restate these doctrines, it would be the following message to Wall Street: "Don't worry about the financial bubbles you create because when you run over the cliff, Uncle Fed will be there to provide you with precious 'liquidity'.

Thus, in his attempt to keep a deep recession from happening, Ben Bernanke has created a depression, and according to him and his followers, the only thing that keeps us in this mess is that Goldstein, er, Ron Paul and others like him, is raising too much hell about the inflation. The only man alive who might have done more damage than Bernanke has been Greenspan, but the combination of the two inflationists has been the destruction of the economy.

Of course, Bernanke (and his alter ego Krugman) are utterly contemptuous of anyone who might think that spreading dollars around the world, bailing out this and that, might not have the desired effects of restoring the economies of the nations. Why would anyone even have the temerity to think that propping up unsustainable capital and directing investment away from those entities that actually are profitable might make things worse? After all, EVERYONE KNOWS that creating more money creates more "aggregate demand," and greater "aggregate demand" means more prosperity.

Second, one of Bernanke's main shills is Alan Blinder, another faculty member at Princeton and a longtime advocate of...inflation. I'd like to say that the current depression has been a case of the Blind (Bernanke) leading the Blinder, but from my perch, it looks as though the whole bunch has been blind from the start.

However, Blinder has managed to do damage not only in backing up Bernanke's inflationary urges, but also in advising the Obama administration on the disastrous "Cash for Clunkers" program. When an economics department is as destructive as Princeton's it is important to spread the destruction to all frontiers.

Third, there is Alan B. Krueger, the Princeton professor who claims that raising the minimum wage will result in...more employment. At his urging, the Obama administration prevailed upon Congress to jack up the minimum wage during a severe recession, with one of the worst results being the record unemployment among young black men. Yes, on one end we have Princeton giving us inflation, and on the other, Princeton making sure more people are out of work, a great one-two roundhouse against the economy.

And then there is Krugman. Yes, the Paul Krugman who advocates the destruction of capital through taxation and regulatory policies. The Paul Krugman who is demanding that the U.S. economy have the capital structure of a Third World economy, but with First World results.

With respect to Albert Einstein, I'd say that this was an economic definition of insanity: Following the disastrous policies of Third World governments, but expecting the results of an economy that welcomes real and profitable capital into its overall structure of production.

Who are the real plutocrats?

In his most recent column, Paul Krugman praises the Wall Street protesters and claims that Republican politicians are in a panic over them.

For example, he paraphrases a quote from Rand Paul. First, this is what Krugman writes:

My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

This is the article from which he got it:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Friday that he believes the Occupy Wall Street protests stem from divisive rhetoric from President Obama, who has called for the richest Americans to pay increased taxes to help close the budget deficit.

"I see the president's rhetoric of envy inflaming the public and saying, 'Go get yours because rich people don't deserve it,'" Paul said on Fox Business.

Paul said he was worried that the president would stoke the protestors' passions to the point that they could become violent.

"I see it as inflaming this Paris mob that I hope doesn't result in a lawlessness where they say, 'Well, gosh, those nice iPads through the window should be mine and why don't I throw a brick through the window to get them because rich people don't deserve to have them when I can't have them,'" Paul said.

(Actually, Rand Paul does not have to worry, as a lot of the protesters are carrying Macbooks, iPhones, iPads, and other instruments of technology that apparently they are simultaneously claiming are evil. No doubt, these people really would riot if their demands were brought to fruition and they no longer could purchase -- or even steal -- them.)

Indeed, with all of his own anti-enterprise rhetoric, what Krugman has been claiming is that a new war against capital formation somehow would help bring recovery. I don't know how that would happen, but Krugman has been saying that if the government were to sharply raise the capital gains taxes and then replace the coming dearth of private capital investment with government "investment" in things like "green energy," that we then would have a robust recovery.

Let us travel down memory lane to why we had the financial panics in the first place. The government was strongly encouraging banks and financial houses to "invest" in the housing market, and and said that Alan Greenspan needed a "housing bubble" to offset a dearth of private capital spending. And we got it.

This was unsustainable, and the Austrians got it early. Heck, even Krugman understood that this bubble would burst before it happened. (I told Allegany County's property tax board in 2006 that the bubble would collapse and that they should not base future financial predictions on the current situation. They laughed at me and one woman replied, "We don't see that happening.")

There would have been a solution to the financial crisis, and that would have been for the banks and financial entities to submit to market discipline. Don't forget that Krugman has parroted the usual line of "the panic happened because the Bush administration let Lehman Brothers fail."

No, Paul, Lehman Brothers failed because the banks -- operating under the infamous "Greenspan and Bernanke Put" -- were holding securitized mortgage paper that could not hold its value. The government bailed out a lot of the firms that drank the Kool-Aide, and Krugman endorsed the bailouts, which meant that some CEOs could hold onto their mansions in Connecticut.

Furthermore, let us remember that government housing policies drove this bubble and that the easy credit regime from the Fed -- again, done with Krugman's blessings and encouragement -- along with numerous government programs to push people into home ownership and, ultimately, into homes that were too costly for their incomes. For that matter, if Krugman really were against the creation of financial bubbles, then why has he endorsed Ben Bernanke's policies of spreading dollars around the globe to prop up both private malinvestments AND government bonds?

Let us be honest. When the entirety of the housing bubble was exposed in 2008, the banks got their bailouts (and Democratic politicians, and especially Obama, who was financed in part by Goldman Sachs, got their campaign contributions), and the Fed and the European Central Bank responded by creating an even BIGGER set of financial bubbles.

The situation is obvious: the combination of private mortgage AND government debt is unpayable and must be restructured. Krugman's "solution" is for governments and central banks to inflate currency in order to "deleverage" the unpayable debt and to repudiate debt through inflation. (One is reminded of debtors in Weimar Germany paying their debts with wagonloads of paper -- the ultimate Krugman "deleveraging solution.")

In the end, the banks pretty much have become the playthings of American politicians and labor unions, who have become the real plutocrats. We now have a president who declares that HE is the law, and that he can assassinate whomever he wishes, and if the target is an American citizen, the Constitutional right of "due process of law" means nothing. If that is not plutocracy, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, the unions were able to force taxpayers to pony up to bail out General Motors and Chrysler, and then to force bondholders for these companies to stand at the back of the line during bankruptcy proceedings, despite what the law actually said. In other words, Obama and his union allies were able to be their own law, which really is the definition of plutocracy.

Don't forget that a lot of the money funding this "Occupy Wall Street" movement comes from the plutocrat George Soros, along with unions and other organizations tied to the Obama administration. And don't you know that in the upcoming political season, a lot of the firms that presently are being targeted are going to pony up and send millions of dollars to Obama and his fellow Democrats in the guise of "campaign contributions"?

Furthermore, the list of "demands" coming from the "Occupy" movement seem a bit suspicious. The immediate end to use of ALL fossil fuels? Hmmm. Sounds like something that might benefit Archer Daniels Midland and all of the "alternative energy" outfits. Gee, maybe the government could force up energy prices so high that even Obama's favorite company, Solyndra, could become solvent again.

No doubt, the president and his friends would not be facing hardships, but those of us who don't have limousines and drivers to take us where we want to go might find it difficult to get to work or even to eat. What better way to empower the state than to turn everyone into outright serfs who would be totally dependent upon the whims of politicians?

Had the banks been forced to liquidate their toxic holdings three years ago, we would not be seeing these "Occupy" demonstrations. Yes, the recession would have been sharp, but not as destructive as Krugman and others claim, and then we would be in a real recovery now. Instead, we are going to have years and years of high unemployment and social unrest.

Somehow, I think that is what the plutocrat in the White House wants.

Setting the Economy on Fire

In briefly praising President Obama's bold-but-apparently-not-bold-enough plan, I am struck by how Paul Krugman holds to the view of the homogenized economy: it doesn't matter where one spends, as all spending will "create jobs." That he believes Obama's program would "make a significant dent in unemployment" does not deviate from his overall Keynesian theory.

He adds that the Evil Republicans don't want people to go back to work (because Krugman believes they enjoy making people suffer), so the Great Plan won't be implemented, anyway. I should add that Krugman apparently does not differentiate between a "plan" that simply throws money at the economy which, at best, would employ lots of politically-connected people (most of the people who would be paid directly under this plan are members of labor unions), and something which would be economically sustainable. Like Keynes, he believes that only short-term measures are meaningful and that an economy is just a homogeneous mass of factors that automatically are employed in even proportions when governments add more money.

In his September 9 column, Krugman gives a lot of space to a recent speech by Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve of Chicago, and both the speech and Krugman's reaction continue the myth of the "do-nothing Fed" that is becoming the newest mantra among Progressives. Krugman writes:

As Mr. Evans pointed out, the Fed, both as a matter of law and as a matter of social responsibility, should try to keep both inflation and unemployment low — and while inflation seems likely to stay near or below the Fed’s target of around 2 percent, unemployment remains extremely high.

So how should the Fed be reacting? Mr. Evans: “Imagine that inflation was running at 5 percent against our inflation objective of 2 percent. Is there a doubt that any central banker worth their salt would be reacting strongly to fight this high inflation rate? No, there isn’t any doubt. They would be acting as if their hair was on fire. We should be similarly energized about improving conditions in the labor market.”

But the Fed’s hair is manifestly not on fire, nor do most politicians seem to see any urgency about the situation. These days, the best — or at any rate the alleged wise men and women who are supposed to be looking after the nation’s welfare — lack all conviction, while the worst, as represented by much of the G.O.P., are filled with a passionate intensity. So the unemployed are being abandoned.

Now, given what the Fed has done these past four years, I am not sure how anyone can claim that Ben Bernanke is fiddling while Rome burns, but I suppose that if one repeats something enough times, it becomes Truth. (With Progressives, they only need to say it one time, since Progressives Speak Only Truth. Just ask them.)

So, let us look at a few things that Uncle Ben has done since 2007:

• He provided the liquidity for the restructuring of Fannie and Freddie when they finally collapsed under the weight of their leveraged portfolios;

• He provided the backstop to the TARP funding that bailed out the Wall Street banks and financial houses;

• He continued and expanded the policies of the infamous "Greenspan Put" in which it was understood that no matter how reckless the banks and financial houses behaved with their "investments," the Fed would be there with the Big Checkbook to set all things right and to provide Holy Water (read that, "liquidity") to pour on the red ink;

• The Fed purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of private securities, as shown by the image below, after The Great Toga Party Unofficially Ended in 2007, in an attempt to shore off the disaster from the huge amounts of leverage that threatened to collapse;

• The Fed issued $1.2 trillion in secret loans to Wall Street and beyond following the 2008 crisis, and even firms like McDonald's received loans from Uncle Sugar;

• The Fed has helped to prop up central banks around the world, most notably the European Central Bank, which faces the same kind of crisis;

• The Fed has continued to purchase U.S. Government long-term debt as part of its "Quantitative Easing" initiative;

• Bernanke continues to push interest rates down to near-zero levels in its attempt to encourage lots of borrowing, especially on behalf of the U.S. Government and other governments.

This hardly reflects a "do-nothing" Fed, but the larger problem is that Krugman and Evans seem to be True Believers who follow a belief that if the Fed truly were doing its job, we would have relatively low-inflation AND low unemployment. In other words, they really believe that the Phillips Curve actually is economic law and not an empirical observation. The problem is not that the Fed has failed to "do something," but rather its "something" constitutes actions that do not get at the heart of the massive malinvestments that have thrown economies around the world over the cliff.

(Keep in mind that the inflation-unemployment relationship as espoused by Keynesians holds that there can be no such thing, theoretically speaking, as stagflation, and when it DOES happen, they give us convoluted things like "oil shocks" or some other even that supposedly happens randomly. And there always is a random event occurring, in their minds, that can explain the unexplainable. The Keynesian view is that increasing the rate of inflation serves to CUT wages across-the-board, which then makes labor relatively cheaper, which encourages more hiring.

I find this interesting, given that Krugman is among the economists claiming that INCREASING wages during a depression will increase EMPLOYMENT because the opposite -- cutting wages -- results in a downward-spiral of spending and ultimately deflation. So, we are in that absurd situation in which Krugman both demands real wages rise AND real wages be cut through inflation, and somehow all of this will turn into economic recovery. Only at Princeton at the New York Times, I guess, but we have to remember that These People Are Smarter Than We Are.)

Let us turn now to Krugman's praise of Obama's newest Pull-The-Rabbit-Out-Of-Our-Hats Scheme. Krugman writes:

O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending.

Still, the plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck. As I said, it’s much bolder and better than I expected. President Obama’s hair may not be on fire, but it’s definitely smoking; clearly and gratifyingly, he does grasp how desperate the jobs situation is.

None of the things that are named in the above list will generate wealth in the U.S. economy, or at least put us on a road to real recovery. Instead, it funnels money to politically-favored groups and to Obama's pet projects of "high-speed rail" and "green energy," neither of which can exist without massive subsidies that have to come from somewhere.

In other words, the Obama program that Krugman praises would work by draining the profitable entities in the economy and diverting resources from higher-valued uses to lower-valued uses. Somehow, I think that this is what Krugman WANTS to see happening.

That's right; I believe that Krugman, like so many other Progressives, sees this crisis as an opportunity for force recalcitrant Americans into changing their lifestyles into something that would reflect how Progressives believe they should be living. What is delusional about all of this is that what Krugman, Bernanke, and all of the other Progressives believe will transform the U.S. economy actually is going to further drag it into oblivion.

Not that wealthy people like Paul Krugman are going to be hurt by all of this. No, he will have a view of the carnage from the luxury box, and all the while he will decry this moral theater, he will be demanding that more people will be thrown into the arena to be devoured by the lions of depression.

Why do I say this? I say this because had the powers-that-be permitted the malinvestments to follow their natural courses -- as opposed to governments trying in vain to prop them up -- when the balance sheets were groaning with red ink, we would be in a real economic recovery now. Instead, we have Krugman and the Progressives insisting that the malinvestments continue on their merry way and that the government add to them the unsustainable burdens of "green energy," corn-based ethanol, high-speed rail, and unionized government that are resulting in millions of people losing their livelihoods.

Let's say what needs to be said: In the name of ending unemployment, Paul Krugman is insisting that we expand the reach of the state, and if people are going to get jobs, they have to be in the areas of employment that meet HIS approval. If they have different ideas, then let them eat cake.

Krugman's Bernanke Problem

I must say that Paul Krugman always is on the lookout for villains. Christians, Creationists, Austrian Economists, Ron Paul, Republicans, and anyone else who is not in complete agreement with The Master all dissent from His Wisdom because they are evil. There can be no other explanation.

So, when people disagree with his view that another $400 billion would have done the trick with the "stimulus," they did so out of evil intent because they enjoy watching people lose their jobs and the economy falling into depression. When people voice concern about massive expansion of the monetary base and the real problems of inflation, they do so out of evil intent because they enjoy watching people lose their jobs and the economy falling into depression. When people object to the massive borrowing that creates an unpayable debt mountain, they do so out of evil intent because they enjoy watching people lose their jobs and the economy falling into depression. And so on.

Today, Krugman introduces a new villain: Rick Perry. Yes, it is Rick Perry, the Texas governor who now is running for the Republican nomination for president. Why is Perry now responsible for the economic misery? He criticizes Ben Bernanke and publicly worries about the various QE's and Fed-financed bailouts, and has used over-the-top language (i.e. "almost treasonous" and “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas” if he has the Fed purchase even more long-term government debt).

However, given the rhetoric I hear from the Democrats (and their media allies like Rachel Mad-dog and Keith Olbermann), accusing Ron Paul of "treason" and "the Tea Party is the enemy" and the like, it seems that what Paul Krugman is saying is that he and his allies are permitted to make whatever accusations they want (free speech, you know), but no one else is permitted to speak. After all, he argues, unless Ben Bernanke is able to do what Krugman has recommended, all hope of economic recovery will be lost, according to Krugman.

Am I exaggerating? Krugman writes:

...I’m using Mr. Perry — who has famously threatened Mr. Bernanke with dire personal consequences if he pursues expansionary monetary policy before the 2012 election — as a symbol of the political intimidation that is killing our last remaining hope for economic recovery. (Emphasis mine)

Just what is this "last remaining hope" policy? Something Krugman believes the Fed should be doing:

Well, in 2000 an economist named Ben Bernanke offered a number of proposals for policy at the “zero lower bound.” True, the paper was focused on policy in Japan, not the United States. But America is now very much in a Japan-type economic trap, only more acute. So we learn a lot by asking why Ben Bernanke 2011 isn’t taking the advice of Ben Bernanke 2000.

Back then, Mr. Bernanke suggested that the Bank of Japan could get Japan’s economy moving with a variety of unconventional policies. These could include: purchases of long-term government debt (to push interest rates, and hence private borrowing costs, down); an announcement that short-term interest rates would stay near zero for an extended period, to further reduce long-term rates; an announcement that the bank was seeking moderate inflation, “setting a target in the 3-4% range for inflation, to be maintained for a number of years,” which would encourage borrowing and discourage people from hoarding cash; and “an attempt to achieve substantial depreciation of the yen,” that is, to reduce the yen’s value in terms of other currencies.

Was Mr. Bernanke on the right track? I think so — as well I should, since his paper was partly based on my own earlier work. (Emphasis mine)

Given Krugman's rhetoric, one would think that Bernanke has been cowed into doing next-to-nothing, yet we read that Bernanke's Fed has made literally trillions of dollars in secret loans to banks and financial houses around the world, not to mention massive purchases of near-worthless assets in hopes that somewhere there is another short-term bubble the Fed can create to give us the illusion of recovery.

Now, I will say that Krugman is right -- we are losing hope for a real economic recovery -- but for the wrong reasons. Krugman is claiming that all that is needed is for the U.S. Government (and governments around the world), along with central banks, to try to pump up massive spending, or, as Keynesians call it, "aggregate demand" in hopes of re-employing "idle" factors of production.

Krugman can make this claim all he wants, but all he is doing is calling for the re-employing of malinvested assets that have gone bust, and that is not going to happen no matter how much nasty rhetoric he and his allies spew out. Krugman can blame Perry, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and a whole list of other "villains," but perhaps he needs to look in the mirror and admit that he and the King's Men cannot inflate our economy back to prosperity.

Princeton University Economics: there is no such thing as opportunity cost

Because I am a holder of a doctorate from a program that was not "elite" by any standards, perhaps I don't understand the power that "elite" economists have in their possession to do away with economic laws. While Paul Krugman is on vacation, his Princeton colleague, Alan Blinder, gives us the latest howlers.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Blinder wonders how anyone might think that lots and lots of federal spending would be "job killing." Impossible! Blinder huffs:

It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget—whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere. But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.

The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?

One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates. That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue. But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today. The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes.

For example, the large fiscal stimulus enacted in 2009 was not "paid for." Yet it has been claimed that it created essentially no jobs. Really? With spending under the Recovery Act exceeding $600 billion (and tax cuts exceeding $200 billion), that would be quite a trick. How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment? In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the stimulus's effect on employment in 2010 was at least 1.3 million net new jobs, and perhaps as many as 3.3 million.

This is a most interesting economic worldview. While Blinder might be "technically" correct in that if government borrows a trillion dollars and spends it on whatever, then in the very short term, no doubt there would be new employment. Would it create new wealth? That is another matter, and would it be sustainable? probably not.

Yet, Blinder really doubles back on himself in that first paragraph. Let me repeat what he said:

But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.

What would constitute "dumb public spending," given that he believes that government spending "creates jobs," even "dumb" spending. What is the criteria for determining that the spending is "dumb," and why would it matter, anyway?

No doubt, Blinder would employ an opportunity cost argument but then he contradicts that argument not only within his sentence, but also further down in the article. He states:

A second job-destroying mechanism operates through higher interest rates. When the government borrows to finance spending, that pushes interest rates up, which dissuades some businesses from investing. Thus falling private investment destroys jobs just as rising government spending is creating them.

There are times when this "crowding-out" argument is relevant. But not today. The Federal Reserve has been holding interest rates at ultra-low levels for several years, and will continue to do so. If interest rates don't rise, you don't get crowding out. (emphasis mine)

So, all that is needed to eliminate "crowding out" (which also is opportunity cost in action) is for the Fed to hold down interest rates by mere fiat? (Oh, I forgot. Ben Bernanke was the chair of the economics department at Princeton before going to the Fed, and he still is listed as being on the faculty there. If one is a Princeton economist, a mere declaration can eliminate that pesky thing called opportunity cost.)

Is all of this spending "job killing"? If one goes by Blinder's ultra-short term view of spending and "job creation," then it is not "killing" jobs. However, if one sees this spending along with other government efforts to prop up the economy as impeding the liquidation of malinvestments and impeding a real recovery, then by all means the government spending spree is killing jobs by the millions.

Rule by inflation

When John Maynard Keynes called for the "euthanasia of the rentier," he meant that the government's monetary authorities should hold the rate of interest low enough to where people who earn money from lending no longer would be willing to lend. Thus, the "rentier" would disappear from the scene.

Paul Krugman is repeating that call, and now claims that it is that evil "rentier" that is dragging down the economy. If only the authorities were willing to listen to him and have more inflation; if and only then would people be able to find jobs and the economy would hum along nicely:

While the ostensible reasons for inflicting pain keep changing, however, the policy prescriptions of the Pain Caucus all have one thing in common: They protect the interests of creditors, no matter the cost. Deficit spending could put the unemployed to work — but it might hurt the interests of existing bondholders. More aggressive action by the Fed could help boost us out of this slump — in fact, even Republican economists have argued that a bit of inflation might be exactly what the doctor ordered — but deflation, not inflation, serves the interests of creditors. And, of course, there’s fierce opposition to anything smacking of debt relief.

Looking at the Fed's balance sheet post TARP, one hardly can say that the Fed has not been "aggressive" in trying to spread more dollars throughout the world. However, I suspect that when Krugman calls for the Fed to be "more aggressive," he means the Fed finding a way to purchase short-term Treasuries directly, as opposed to buying them on the secondary market. (The original Federal Reserve Act prohibits the Fed from such direct purchases, although given that Washington no longer has to abide by the same laws that govern the rest of us, I am sure Ben Bernanke can find a way around such pesky requirements.)

Krugman's call for more inflation is based upon his belief that inflation benefits low-income people and hurts the wealthy. Thus, the reason that inflation is not higher is due to unwarranted lobbying by the rich, who are benefiting at the expense of the rest of us.

Now, when the main financial crisis hit in 2008, I argued (contra Krugman) that not only would bailouts retard any recovery, as they would prevent or postpone liquidation of bad assets, but also would increase the political strength of the very people who had driven the economy over the cliff. Krugman now thinks that the people on Wall Street have too much political influence, but he fails to see the connection between the bailouts and their political strength.

I will go even further. Krugman is absolutely wrong on inflation, in that the people most hurt by it are NOT the rich, but rather the small savers and people on fixed incomes. (Krugman claims that people on SS and other fixed incomes would not be hurt because SS is indexed to inflation.)

Here is the problem, and it demonstrates that Keynesians (once again) really have no concept of money and see it only as a "quantity variable." Yet, what actually happens with a burst of inflation?

As Henry Hazlitt points out in his excellent Economics in One Lesson, inflation creates a "mirage" of prosperity at the beginning, but in the end is like the "Dead Sea fruit that turns to dust and ashes in its mouth." A new bout of inflation does not raise all prices and incomes at the same time. Instead, those who receive the new money first receive the benefits, while those at the back of the line (small savers and, yes, people on fixed incomes, even those incomes indexed to inflation) bear the costs. Murray Rothbard writes:

Inflation, then, confers no general social benefit; instead, it redistributes the wealth in favor of the first-comers and at the expense of the laggards in the race. And inflation is, in effect, a race--to see who can get the new money earliest. The latecomers--the ones stuck with the loss--are often called the "fixed income groups." Ministers, teachers, people on salaries, lag notoriously behind other groups in acquiring the new money. Particular sufferers will be those depending on fixed money contracts--contracts made in the days before the inflationary rise in prices. Life insurance beneficiaries and annuitants, retired persons living off pensions, landlords with long term leases, bondholders and other creditors, those holding cash, all will bear the brunt of the inflation. They will be the ones who are "taxed."

He continues:

Inflation has other disastrous effects. It distorts that keystone of our economy: business calculation. Since prices do not all change uniformly and at the same speed, it becomes very difficult for business to separate the lasting from the transitional, and gauge truly the demands of consumers or the cost of their operations. For example, accounting practice enters the "cost" of an asset at the amount the business has paid for it. But if inflation intervenes, the cost of replacing the asset when it wears out will be far greater than that recorded on the books. As a result, business accounting will seriously overstate their profits during inflation--and may even consume capital while presumably increasing their investments.

In Krugman's Keynesian world, however, none of that matters. If anything, businesses are parasites and government, by creating "new money," also creates wealth. That really is the "New Economics" in a single sentence.

All is well -- on the inflation front! (If you like inflation)

At the end of "Animal House," there is a scene in which the character played by Kevin Bacon is "assuring" the panicked crowd that "ALL IS WELL!"

I make that point because every time I read something from Paul Krugman or someone claiming the Federal Reserve System is being too tight with money and that there really hardly any inflation at all, I think of Kevin Bacon's "Animal House" character. With the price of food, fuel, and consumer goods skyrocketing, the notion that the massive Ben Bernanke "experiment" of showering the world with dollars has had almost no effect on oil and food prices really is a joke.

But, the joke is on us, if Krugman is to be believed. Fuel prices? Food prices? Oh, they're volatile, so we pay no attention to them. In reading Krugman's column today on "The Intimidated Fed," I must admit that his explanation of higher oil and gasoline prices smacks of Jake Blue's excuses when faced with his jilted fiance (played by Carrie Fisher) who is pointing a machine gun at him:



Actually, according to Krugman, it is Ron Paul's fault:

What’s going on here? My interpretation is that Mr. Bernanke is allowing himself to be bullied by the inflationistas: the people who keep seeing runaway inflation just around the corner and are undeterred by the fact that they keep on being wrong.

Lately the inflationistas have seized on rising oil prices as evidence in their favor, even though — as Mr. Bernanke himself pointed out — these prices have nothing to do with Fed policy. The way oil prices are coloring the discussion led the economist Tim Duy to suggest, sarcastically, that basic Fed policy is now to do nothing about unemployment “because some people in the Middle East are seeking democracy.” (emphasis added)

But I’d put it differently. I’d say that the Fed’s policy is to do nothing about unemployment because Ron Paul is now the chairman of the House subcommittee on monetary policy. (emphasis added)

So much for the Fed’s independence. And so much for the future of America’s increasingly desperate jobless.

Let's see. Oil sold on international markets is traded in U.S. dollars, and the Fed is deliberately trying to weaken the dollar through monetary expansion, and there is no relationship between the two policies and what is happening to oil prices?

Belushi! Thou shouldst be living at this hour! Krugman hath need of thee!

Actually, claiming that Ron Paul is really responsible for people wondering out loud of there just might be a connection between the rise of commodity prices and the Fed's massive monetary expansion honors Rep. Paul too much. (Not that Krugman is honoring him; Krugman has come to condemn Paul, not to praise him.)

The idea that Ron Paul is "intimidating" anyone really is a pathetic joke. During sessions of the House Subcommittee on Monetary Policy, the Democrats act as if they are playing their own version of "Animal House," complete with staged walkouts. (And, no, Rep. Paul does not play the Dean Wormer role and yell at the departing Democrats, "You're finished here at Faber!")

Now, if Krugman has any guts at all, he could be calling for the ultimate marriage of "monetary and fiscal" policies: Have the Fed purchase short-term T-bills directly from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 outlaws such actions, but all it takes to change the law or get around its provisions is a stroke of the pen, right? Obama already has been making "signing statements" in which he says he doesn't have to follow Congressional directives, so why not end this prohibition with a simple executive order?)

You see, should Krugman believe that they way to eliminate high rates of unemployment is through massive new government spending, why not go whole hog? Let the Fed just finance ALL government borrowing this way. I'm sure that "America's increasingly desperate jobless" would appreciate being hired as street sweepers to sweep up all of the dollar bills lying in the gutter!

A change in direction on this blog

For more than a year, this blog has dealt almost exclusively with Paul Krugman's columns, blog posts and public statements. I will continue to follow what Krugman writes, but I also would like to deal with economic subjects and the economy as a whole without always having to reference Krugman.

The blog's name, Krugman-in-Wonderland, will stay the same, at least for now, but the subject matter will be broader. Part of this change comes because of suggestions from readers who would like to see a larger discussion of economic issues, and part of the change, frankly, comes because of the New York Times' new policy of making people pay for access. (I guess that the NYT is following the policies of their nemesis, Rupert Murdoch, who has a pay-to-read policy at the Wall Street Journal.)

I do have access to Krugman's columns through Lexis-Nexis via the Frostburg State library site, and have 20 "free" articles a month at the NYT. So, I won't completely ignore the guy, but am not going to be dealing with the refutation of particular columns or posts unless it is germane to the larger argument.

We all know where Krugman stands. He is an inflationist who actually believes that government can create wealth via printing of money. That is the bottom line with him, and we are now going to be reaping a huge whirlwind because of the funny money that Ben Bernanke has showered around the world.

The irony is that Krugman believes that Bernanke has not inflated enough, and as prices of food, fuel, and (soon to come) consumer goods rise rapidly, Krugman will insist that we really are not experiencing inflation at all, but rather that a rush of "corporate greed" has swept the nation, and that massive price controls will save the day. So, there is much more to come.

Are the Republicans Killing the Recovery, or is Krugman Killing Economic Logic?

Once upon a time, economists were taught logic, as they had to use it in presenting their material. Over time, the study of logic -- and the attendant fallacies that good students learn in order to recognize good arguments over fallacious ones -- was replaced by multi-variable calculus and statistics.

Places like MIT (where Paul Krugman received his Ph.D.) promoted a mathematically-rigorous economics graduate program, and most everywhere else followed at one level or another. "Doing economics" became creating mathematical models that either were supposed to emulate either what individuals do (microeconomics) or an entire economy (macroeconomics) and then "solving" the mathematical equations and presenting one's results as an economic application.

The most famous of the MIT professors was Paul Samuelson, who not only was successful in transforming academic economics from one of logical constructs to aping the "language of physics," but also promoting Keynesian "economics" in the United States. Like his student after him, Samuelson also received the Nobel in economics.

Why the long introduction? I do it because Krugman once again abandons economics for circular logic in his latest column. We get such gems as:

So we’ve gone through years of high unemployment and inadequate growth. Despite the pain, however, American families have gradually improved their financial position. And in the past few months there have been signs of an emerging virtuous circle. As families have repaired their finances, they have increased their spending; as consumer demand has started to revive, businesses have become more willing to invest; and all this has led to an expanding economy, which further improves families’ financial situation.

Before the Doctrines of Samuelson had taken hold, such a statement immediately would have been recognized as an example of circular logic, or, more specifically, the informal logical fallacy of "begging the question." Today, unfortunately, this is what passes for economic wisdom.

Every once in a while Krugman has a column full of such economic gems, and this is one of them. At the present time, the Republicans are proposing about $60 billion in cuts -- this with a proposed budget deficit of approximately $1.5 TRILLION -- and Krugman is claiming that such cuts will "kill" the current economic recovery.

I'd like to say that on its face, such a statement falls into the "howler" category, but this gives authentic howlers a bad name. This comes from the same guy who still wants us to believe that had the "stimulus" passed in 2009 been $1.2 trillion instead of $800 billion, that we would have had a full recovery. Yeah, all it took was another $400 of paving roads, and we would have been in clover.

However, when Krugman writes a Really Rich Column, he throws in lots and lots of howlers. So, we get this one:

But it’s (the recovery) still a fragile process, especially given the effects of rising oil and food prices. These price rises have little to do with U.S. policy; they’re mainly because of growing demand from China and other emerging markets, on one side, and disruption of supply from political turmoil and terrible weather on the other. But they’re a hit to purchasing power at an especially awkward time. And things will be much worse if the Federal Reserve and other central banks mistakenly respond to higher headline inflation by raising interest rates.

Yep, Krugman pulls his best Jake Blues act by trying to claim that the rise in oil and food prices has nothing to do with the fact that Ben Bernanke has been showering the world with dollars. Yeah, commodity prices are volatile and we have had bad weather, and so on and so on.

The fact that the currency used to pay for oil worldwide is the dollar is irrelevant in Krugman's political world, but it is relevant in the real world. When there is a movement afoot to use something other than the dollar to pay for international oil sales, I don't think it is because the Republicans want to cut 1.7 percent from Obama's current budget.

However, we are supposed to ignore this and accept Krugman's politically-convenient "bad weather and everyone else is getting richer" explanation. That is not economics, nor is it even mediocre economic logic. No, it is the application of pure, political partisanship in an attempt to circumvent sound economic thinking. Yep, that's Paul Krugman.

The Great Inflationist Kneecapper

In an interview many years ago, Victor Navasky, the former editor of The Nation, described the New York Post as an entity that would "kneecap" anyone it did not like, and he did a "rat-a-tat-tat" imitation with his hands. (Not that Navasky and The Nation ever would do such a thing themselves.)

Economists at one time did not publicly kneecap each other. They hardly were (or are) angels behind the scenes, and I have been witness to some real ugliness that has transpired in economics departments, and ideology really had little or nothing to do with the infighting.

Over the years, I have been privileged to have met economists who won Nobel prizes and read their material. Some were forceful in what they wrote, and others were not, but even in their popular press columns, they never launched outright personal attacks on other economists, and when they mentioned others, they dealt with their arguments as they understood them.

I guess that Paul Krugman represents a new era in how Nobel-winning economists present themselves in public, and his column on Rep. Ron Paul's hearing on the Federal Reserve System once again crosses that line of civility and decency. (Perhaps it is better to argue that Krugman long ago crossed the line and decided just to stay there, and maybe build a mansion.)

It is perhaps ironic that Rep. William Lacy Clay, a congressman from St. Louis, launched the personal attacks (of which Krugman clearly approves) on Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo by claiming that Austrian Economics is "unscientific" because it relies upon deductive logic. As anyone who has taken a logic class knows, the ad homimen, appeal to authority, and the like fall into the category of "informal fallacies," yet, Krugman obviously likes to employ them. Clay also relied heavily upon such fallacies in his "proof" that Dr. DiLorenzo was a fraud.

Now, I always have learned that if one wishes to attack the position of another person, one first should do some fact-checking. First, Krugman's comments:

One of the hearings was called by Representative Ron Paul, a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve, who now has an oversight role over the very institution he wants abolished in favor of a return to the gold standard. Mr. Paul’s subcommittee called three witnesses, one of whom was an odd choice: Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor at Loyola University and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

What was odd about that choice? Well, Mr. DiLorenzo hasn’t actually written much about monetary policy, although he has described Fed policy — not just recently, but since the 1960s — as “legalized counterfeiting operations.” His main claim to fame, instead, is as a critic of Lincoln — he’s the author of “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe” — and as a modern-day secessionist.

No, really: calls for secession run through many of Mr. DiLorenzo’s writings — for example, in his declaration that “healthcare freedom” won’t be restored until “some states begin seceding from the new American fascialistic state.” Raise the rebel flag! (Emphasis mine)

Now, here is Dr. DiLorenzo's reply:

The junior high schoolish smart aleck Paul Krugman, who writes for that well-known leftist tabloid the New York Times, wisecracks about the Ron Paul Fed hearings in his recent column where he says that I was writing about the Fed as “a legalized counterfeiting operation” as far back as the 1960s. That’s unlikely since the very first thing that I ever wrote that was published was an article for the peer-reviewed Southern Economic Journal in 1980, shortly after I finished graduate school. He must have me confused with Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard. I guess all Austrians look alike to some people.

Now, why does Krugman go rabid at any criticism of Abraham Lincoln? He explains:

He (Lincoln) was, after all, the first president to institute an income tax. And he was also the first president to issue a paper currency — the “greenback” — that wasn’t backed by gold or silver.

Yes, Lincoln was a "stimulus" sort of guy, someone who liked to print money. However, if one reads through the Krugman columns, one finds that anyone critical of such an action is to be labeled...well, whatever Krugman wants to call him. A racist? Yes. An ignoramus? Yes.

So, Paul Krugman is becoming unleashed. Disagree with him on monetary policy, global warming, the current inflation situation, taxes, and whatever else and you are not simply wrong. No, you oppose all these things because you are evil. You want people to lose their jobs and be unemployed and poor forever. There is no other explanation.

Yeah, Krugman, People Oppose QE2 Because They Want to See People Out of Work

One of the reasons that I continue to write on this blog has been Paul Krugman's constant contention that anyone who believes he is wrong does not really believe Krugman is wrong. The only reasons for opposing Krugman's statements, according to Krugman, is that a person is Really Stupid or, more likely, just plain evil.

Furthermore, I have watched him constantly rewrite the history of financial deregulation in which he has claimed that all of the deregulation occurred under Ronald Reagan when, in fact, most of the original work was done before Reagan took office, and under the direction of Democrats. I also have noted that deregulatory efforts of Congressional Democrats took place because the system at the time, dominated by internal markets, was too stratified and too inefficient to deal with the kind of investment that would be needed as high technology was rapidly advancing.

So, in reading Krugman's column today, I admit I am not surprised when he claims that the only reason that Republicans, China, and Germany are raising serious issues about the so-called QE2 is that they want to see other people suffer. (Yes, he does have a qualifying phrase, but I never have read anything by Krugman that has claimed that anyone who disagreed with him came by it honestly. At best, anyone who carries a contrary view does so out of absolute stupidity at best and venality at worst.)

He writes:

So what’s really motivating the G.O.P. attack on the Fed? Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues were clearly caught by surprise, but the budget expert Stan Collender predicted it all. Back in August, he warned Mr. Bernanke that “with Republican policy makers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,” they would be “opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.” In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.

Hence the axis of depression. No doubt some of Mr. Bernanke’s critics are motivated by sincere intellectual conviction, but the core reason for the attack on the Fed is self-interest, pure and simple. China and Germany want America to stay uncompetitive; Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.

Now, I would say there is a good bit of hypocrisy, and I certainly am not going to shill for Republicans, given that they helped produce the Housing Bubble, although the Democrats that ran Congress from 2007 on certainly played their irresponsible role, too. A plague on both their houses! Moreover, when I read Sarah Palin's letter to the Wall Street Journal, I find it interesting that the same person who shilled for the TARP now has suddenly discovered "sound money." So, she was for monetary irresponsibility before she was against it. And I have no doubt that had John McCain been elected (and, thus, driving me to drink), he would be following pretty much the same course as Obama, except he would have diverted "stimulus" money to his supporters instead of Obama's -- and Palin would have been parroting the policy as McCain's VP.

However, when Krugman (and now Bernanke) and others claim that the current economic depression in this country is due to China's own monetary policies, then someone needs to go back to school. Henry Hazlitt wrote that inflation, which gives the "good effects" first (a temporary surge in buying and employment) and the "bad effects" later (higher prices, malinvestments, and unemployment) is like the "Dead Sea Fruit" which turns to ashes in one's mouth. He also wrote the following about the use of inflation, with the great inflation during the French Revolution (and the circulation of the infamous Assignats):

(The) world has failed to learn the lesson of the Assignats. Perhaps the study of the other great inflations - of John Law’s experiments with credit in France …; of the history of our own Continental currency …; of the Greenbacks of our Civil War; of the great German inflation that culminated in 1923 - would help to underscore and impress that lesson. Must we, from this appalling and repeated record, draw once more the despairing conclusion that the only thing man learns from history is that man learns nothing from history?

Of course, I am sure that Krugman would claim that Mr. Hazlitt simply wanted French people to be out of work. After all, it was Henry Hazlitt who carefully refuted Keynes' General Theory page by page and line by line. If Hazlitt, who knew the General Theory as well as any person alive wasn't convinced of its brilliance, then he could have come to his conclusion only because he didn't want people to have jobs.

Lew Rockwell on Keynesian "Inception"

One thing I like about Lew Rockwell is that he has an uncanny way of explaining things in ways that anyone (except, perhaps, a Ph.D. economist) can understand. There is no wonkishness, no equivocating, and certainly no appeal to the God of the State.

His latest article, "The State's 'Inception' Fails," is an excellent case in point, and I urge readers to find out for yourselves why I believe this commentary is on the mark. Lew writes:

Two years ago, the economy was seriously dragged down amidst an amazing banking crisis that spread throughout the world. The illusion created by loose credit – that housing could go up in price forever and we could enjoy permanent prosperity due to monetary expansion – was shattered by events. Reality had dawned. We found ourselves in the midst of an economic depression.

At that point in policy, we were at a fork in the road. The wise direction was to let the depression happen. Let the bad investments wash out of the system. Let housing prices fall. Let banks go broke. Let wages fall and permit the market to reallocate all resources from bubble projects to projects that make economic sense. That was the direction chosen by the Reagan administration in 1981, and by the Harding administration in 1921. The result in both cases was a short downturn followed by recovery.

The Bush administration, in a policy later followed by the Obama administration, instead attempted a tactic of dream incubation as portrayed in the recent film Inception. The idea was to inject artificial stimulus into the macroeconomic environment. There were random spending programs, massive buyouts of bad debt using phony money, gargantuan tax tricks, incentive programs for throwing good money after bad, and hiring strategies to weave illusions about how all is well.

His reference to "Inception" is quite accurate, and his explanation clearly explains his analogy:

In the movie, the goal of the dream incubation was to implant an idea into an unsuspecting subject’s head that would cause him to act differently than he otherwise would have. In the real life version of inception, the state tried to implant in all our heads the idea that there was no depression, no economic collapse, no housing crisis, no push back on real estate prices, and really no serious problem at all that the state cannot fix provided we are obedient subjects and do what we are told.

In the movie version, the attempted inception is on a time clock. The dream weavers can only keep the subject in a state of slumber so long. In the real life version, things are much messier. The headlines have spoken about the impending recovery every day for all this time, and yet the evidence has never really been there. All the stimulus really did was forestall events a bit longer, but it hasn’t prevented them.

Now, with the stock markets melting and the near-universal consensus that we are back in recession, everyone is awake. It is pretty clear that the inception did not take. The unemployment data look absolutely terrible. As the Wall Street Journal points out, only 59% of men age 20 and over have a full-time job (in the 1950s, that figure was 85%). Only 61% of all people over 20 have any kind of job now.

Unfortunately, the "educated" people like Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke, while disagreeing on some of the details of what government policies should be, nonetheless share the same general view: Only government spending can bring back the economy through artificial "stimulus." Unfortunately, these people have misunderstood what an economy really is and how it works. Like other academic economists, they see an economy through mathematical equations in which there really is no purposeful human action.

Instead, the automons produce goods on one end and then "buy back" what they have produced, which makes no sense from the larger point of view. It creates a view of people who simply go through the same motions day after day, and if they do it enough times, the economy gains what Krugman likes to call "traction," which then permits this process to go on somewhat rhythmically. If the individual does not spend in the patterns that the academic economists declare are necessary for this "traction" to continue, then the consumer somehow is "falling down on the job."

With the "Ruling Class" economists and politicians, there always is someone else to blame. The "stimulus" was too small; consumers are greedily saving their money instead of dishing it out at the stores and in auto showrooms; businesses refuse to engage in long-term spending and investment; banks are sitting on reserves; or Republicans (though is a huge minority in Congress) are keeping President Obama from carrying out his proper duties just as Goldstein constantly thwarted the aims of Big Brother.

Unfortunately, this administration -- like the one that preceded it -- is refusing to face reality and continues to believe in its "inceptionist" tactics. However, an economy is not an imaginary construct; it is a real entity and its success depends upon the ability of entrepreneurs and producers to make those goods that people need, something that always will escape the understanding of the supposedly "best and brightest" among us.

What Can the Fed Do?

In his column today, Paul Krugman excoriates the Federal Reserve System, and especially Ben Bernanke, for "inventing reasons to dither in the face of mass unemployment." Why? Because the Fed is not creating enough inflation, which Krugman claims will give the economy "traction."

Krugman writes:

America’s current economic troubles aren’t exactly identical to those of Japan in 1999-2000: Japan was experiencing outright deflation, while we aren’t — yet. But inflation is well below the Fed’s target of around 2 percent, and it is continuing to slide. And Americans face a level of unemployment, and sheer human misery, far worse than anything Japan went through.

Yet the Fed is doing almost nothing to confront these troubles.

However, Krugman also suggests a "solution," and it is here that I think we need a discussion. He says:

What could the Fed be doing? Back when, Mr. Bernanke suggested, among other things, that the Bank of Japan could get traction by buying large quantities of “nonstandard” assets — that is, assets other than the short-term government debt central banks normally hold. The Fed actually put that idea into practice during the most acute phase of the financial crisis, acquiring, in particular, large amounts of mortgage-backed securities. However, it stopped those purchases in March.

Since then, the economic news has grown steadily worse. And earlier this week, the Fed changed course — but barely. It now says that it will reinvest the proceeds from maturing securities in long-term government bonds. That’s a trivial change, basically the least the Fed could get away with without facing a firestorm of criticism — and far short of the major asset-purchase program the Fed should be undertaking.

So, once again we see the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy at work. Why is the economy now in the tank? The Fed isn't buying enough assets, as though the economy was doing well in March.

Not surprisingly, Krugman blames those dastardly regional Fed chairmen for this plight, declaring:

What’s going on here? Has Mr. Bernanke been intellectually assimilated by the Fed Borg? I prefer to believe that he’s being political, unwilling to engage in open confrontation with other Fed officials — especially those regional Fed presidents who fear inflation, even with deflation the clear and present danger, and are evidently unmoved by the plight of the unemployed.

And in fairness to Mr. Bernanke, discord among senior officials also makes it difficult for policy to change expectations: it would be hard to credibly commit to higher inflation if this commitment were constantly being undercut by speeches out of the Richmond or Dallas Feds. In fact, I’d argue that loose talk by some Fed officials is already having a negative economic impact. But while Mr. Bernanke doesn’t have the authority to stop that loose talk, he could make it clear that it doesn’t represent overall Fed policy.

Yeah, its the rhetoric. If only we had all members of the Fed declaring that what this country needs is a good bout of inflation, then everything would be fine and the economy would be gaining "traction" toward recovery. However, there is a problem here, and it is NOT that President Obama waited until recently to fill 16 Fed slots, regardless of what Krugman claims.

No, the problem is that Krugman confuses the paper purchase of assets deemed worthless in the markets with the creation of real wealth. I have said before that Krugman really does confuse paper money with wealth, a fallacy that Adam Smith and others exploded more than two centuries ago, yet lives on in the hallowed halls of Ivy League institutions.

Like the Supply-Siders that claim that the real problem is that the government has not cut tax rates low enough (although that does help), Krugman's answer always is that there is not enough inflation. In Krugman's view, there really is no "real" economy; instead, it is a combination of paper and rhetoric, as though capital and other factors of production are simple putty to be molded in the hands of the "experts" in Washington.

The economy is not tanking because of any alleged "dithering" at the Fed. It is tanking because the government insists upon strangling those firms that still are healthy ("wicked profiteers") and propping up the politically-connected firms (i.e. Government Motors) or forcing taxpayers to ante up to pay for assets that cannot ever be profitable in a real economy (i.e. "Green Energy"). The Keynesian prescription - inflate, inflate, inflate - is what is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and as long as that mentality rules, we will have a moribund and depressed economy.