Hey, You have to Break a Few Eggs to Break an Economy
At Ricochet, Rob Long links to economist William Anderson of the Krugman in Wonderland blog, even more necessary since the Times' economist (whose mid-century Keynesian-Galbraithian anti-free market worldview recalls bowtied Irving R. Levine, minus the gravitas) instituted his three-inches-or-less rule. As Rob writes:
Here he is, in an open letter to Paul Krugman, taking apart one of his recent columns, arguing for the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts:In your column today on extending the lower tax rates that now exist on the highest levels of income, you justify your point on two levels:
- The government needs more revenue and the state needs to take as much property as possible from private owners;
- Wealthy people are unlikely to spend every penny of their income immediately, so it is important for the Political Classes to get their hands on those funds, as governments will spend freely in the short run.
Thus, from what I can tell, you believe that it is the Very Duty of Everyone to spend everything quickly, and since you are advocating such beliefs publicly, I would like to challenge you to practice what you preach. Here are some suggestions...
He goes on to recommend that Krugman impose his own tax rates on himself; spend 100% of his current income; dump his investments; and refuse to buy commodities. He winds up this way:I realize that you might be objecting by now. After all, why should you be the fall guy? However, as I read your words, you are claiming that there not only is an economic problem with paying less taxes, saving money, and abstaining from some personal spending in order to save for the future, but also a moral problem, then I would hate for you to be forced to act both unprofessionally AND engage in immoral behavior.
Holding the left accountable for its nutty philosophies? Nicely done.
Oh sure, Paul will alter his lifestyle the same time that greeniacs such as Al Gore, James Cameron and fellow Timesman Tom Friedman vacate the mansions they've spent years cultivating their Mini-Me personas to justify.
Elsewhere in the world of daft reactionary economists, Obama-voting Jim Cramer now apparently sees Democratic apparatchiks behind every corner (though that's understandable when you work for a GE-owned network.)
…if you are an owner of stock, any stock, if you are using the stock market for retirement or for savings to put your kid through school or to augment your paycheck, I think you are now beginning to see the silver lining of the miserable economic news: change in Washington. In fact, every time we see a downtick in the popular polls for the administration or Congress the large stockholders I know secretly cheer. They can’t cheer out loud without looking like Scrooge. Or they fear the wrath of Obama, which, on Wall Street, by the way, feels like the wrath of Nixon. It is, however, how many of them privately feel.
You know it. I know it. It is just that nobody wants to say it. Nobody wants to even believe it, as it so downright cynical. And, of course, nobody wants to criticize this president other than the people who are paid to criticize — the Republicans in Congress and various news entities that cater to the right. You take your public life in your hands the moment you do.
Nahh. As the Professor writes, "Relax, Jim. It’s safe to criticize them now. And soon it will not merely be safe, but fashionable." Even Palace Guard comedians like Jon Stewart and David Letterman are now permitted by their network bosses to admit that the clothes have no emperor:
And finally, speaking of Recovery Summer Bummer, Michael Ramirez reminds us that you have to break a few eggs to break the economy: