I have long intended to paint a bullseye on the ideas Paul Krugman puts out in the public area, and expose them as the retarded lies they are. Yes, I know he won the Nobel Prize. So did Al Gore and Yasser Arafat. What’s your point?
First off, the Keynesian economics which he promotes are fascist. Wait, wait, wait, violation of Godwin’s Law. Well, whose word could we take on what is and isn’t fascist? In my view, we could not do better than the words of Benito Mussollini. If I have any readers, I would hope they would agree.
Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a [purported] Liberal. In fact Mr. Keynes excellent little book, “The End of Laissez Faire” might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it, and there is much to applaud.
We need to remember that Fascism was not a bad word back then. Many of the people around FDR looked to it as a potential model for the use of government power to regulate the economy.
What is Mr. Krugman proposing? Spending some multiple of what Obama has already spent, to stimulate “growth”. In making this claim, he reverts to the myth of FDR as having ended, rather extended, the Recession of 1929.
What happened in the Great Depression? As I see it, the situation is far from complex. Throughout the 1920’s the Federal Reserve intentionally employed inflationary policies, which had the apparently planned effect of strengthening the British pound relative to the dollar, which was a necessary element for them to even pretend to afford their Socialism.
At a certain point, key investors realized that a house built on credit cannot long endure, so they pulled out. None of the J.P. Morgan, or Rockefeller types lost any money in the Crash. Arguably, they initiated it, although it was just a matter of time in any event.
The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, had begun tightening the money supply prior to the Crash, ostensibly to bring stock prices down, and continued it until we had a full blown Depression. The current Federal Reserve chairman shares this assessment.
In my view, though, this was no accident. The same investors who rode the stock up, and sold high, then were able to seize up the innumerable businesses and banks who went belly up in the aftermath. Bernanke, in that link, points to an attack on the dollar:
Central banks as well as private investors converted a substantial quantity of dollar assets to gold in September and October of 1931, reducing the Federal Reserve’s gold reserves. The speculative attack on the dollar also helped to create a panic in the U.S. banking system. Fearing imminent devaluation of the dollar, many foreign and domestic depositors withdrew their funds from U.S. banks in order to convert them into gold or other assets.
. This led to the banking panic we saw in “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
This is the sort of tactic George Soros has used to build up a massive fortune. Once you have enough money in pocket, you can literally affect national economies, especially if you work in tandem with like-minded people.
The set up for the Great Depression, then, was in my view a result of the manipulation of our financial system by Wall Street elites, and possibly foreign interests.
FDR, then, came into office with a Populist mandate. He was the guy who “understood that my boss really is a son of a bitch”. He was genial. He smiled a lot. And he was going to sock it to the fat cats, and take care of the little guy.
And the policies he pursued were deficit spending on projects with artificially high wages, and punitive taxation on the wealthy. The Davis-Bacon wages, put into place under Hoover, have the effect of making it harder for local private businesses to compete for labor. And once the project is done, the effects on the local business environment endure. Dams have no permanent positive effect on economies. Only money invested in BUSINESS infrastructure does.
And FDR combined these policies–future taxation in the form of deficits and current taxation on investor income–with constant denigration of Capitalists and business owners as a class. People did not trust him. Those able to do so moved their money out of the country or sat on it (as they are doing today, with a much more consciously Socialist President). This is why Keynes wanted governmental restrictions on international money movement, so that once the clamp closed, no one could escape.
All of these things put together made what should have been a recession into a national disaster. It didn’t help that we put tariffs on imports, which caused other nations to reciprocate, which killed our exports. This is the part that had the most direct effect on the global economy.
The reality, to the point here, is that the policies that Krugman is advocating not only will not generate permanent jobs, but that they will create an environment in which our currency can and will be attacked by speculators, and devalued. Keynes himself wanted a global currency. Such a thing, of course, is a very useful prelude to the imposition of global government.
It is significant that the two highest ranking Soviet agents of whom we know–Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White–presided over the creation of the two most important international bodies: the UN, for Hiss, and the IMF/World Bank for White. Keynes, of course, played a key role in getting us off the gold standard (making currency attacks easier, as well as inflation easier), and in setting up the World Bank.
Given that Keynes economic ideas were decisively refuted 65 years ago, it is difficult for me to believe Krugman is just stupid.
This means he is a willing tool of national and international Socialists. This is not a necessary conclusion, but a likely one. This further means he is knowingly advocating policies which cause an increase in human suffering, a decrease in liberty, generalized decreases in our standard of living, and in the end the imposition of tyranny around the globe.
I will leave the reader to judge what sort of human being that makes him.
I will have more to say later. I am currently reading a book by George Bernard Shaw where he explains his views. What I expect to see is one to one correspondence between Fabian Socialist objectives, and Keynesian proposals. These would include an abandonment of the gold standard, the progressive nationalization of key industries through the government taking over in measured phases, the denigration of personal savings, direct State control of personal assets, the encouragement of certain multinational corporations to develop monopolies, and bringing as many people as possible onto the government payroll (but only ideologically compatible ones).