A guest post is on Gather.com by Steve Bachmann. He’s striking at the root, asking why Keynesians like Paul Krugman believe government is either A.) magical, or B.) composed of a class of people inherently smarter than you.
Here’s an excerpt to get you started:
Paul Krugman’s latest N.Y. Times Op-Ed column is another classic case study in the degree of absurdity and nonsense that permeates Keynesian economic thinking.
Entitled “The Fatal Distraction,” dear Professor Krugman laments the political class and Beltway punditry’s recent focus on what he calls “the alleged dangers of budget deficits” (as if there were nothing inherently pernicious about unbridled spending above and beyond one’s available means), and thereby, he contends, ” inflicting grievous harm as a result.” Because, to Paul Krugman’s deluded imagination, “deficit spending helps support a depressed economy,” and thus “are no threat at all.”
It’s striking that Krugman would accuse his peers in the economics profession who disagree with his Keynesian doctrines of being “unscientific” in their analyses, since his own analysis amounts to a tacit repudiation of economic science. For if government can cure our economic ills just by profligate spending, if all it takes to cure a depression is for government to expropriate the wealth-producers in the voluntary sector and substitute their own discretion for that of the productive class, then what point could there possibly be in studying, refining or elaborating economic theory at all? We could toss all textbooks and treatises aside; if government can raise wages, make credit and capital more abundant, make every adult American a worthy homeowner, call forth “demand” from thin air to cure unemployment, and whatever other miracles it is generally held capable of “regulating” into existence, then clearly there can be no point or merit to theories that ascribe a priori and immutable characteristics to phenomena of social cooperation.