The Guardian: Paul Krugman should be U.S. Treasury Secretary

The friend who sent this article to me wrote:

Part of me actually hopes for this appointment because he will accelerate the collapse of the current psychotic Keynesian ideology and our unsustainable fiscal practices. The sooner it ends, the better…even if that end is painful.

I couldn’t agree more.  Now for some snippets from the latest Op Ed insanity from a major publication:

Not only is he the world’s best-known economist, Krugman has the intellect and integrity to resist Wall Street’s calls for austerity.

He could ignore what Wall Street and conservative media interests want and pick somebody who would represent what the electorate voted for. And not even just the people who voted for him: there are a lot of Republican voters out there who are also unemployed.

It didn’t take long for the author to expose his lack of understanding in the above paragraph, where he uses the same old false left-right divide to imply Wall Street is “conservative.”  They are the furthest thing from conservative, they are simply financial oligarchs that own both major parties and Paul Krugman would be an ideal tool for them as well.

Then again, he does make one point I agree with:

This was unprecedented and an historic change; Kim is practically the only World Bank president in 60 years who was not previously a banker or a war criminal.

However, he immediately reverts to nonsense very quickly when he states:

Now, of course, the World Bank is not a cabinet appointment, but there is a lot of money that flows from that supposedly multilateral institution to the coffers of US corporations. You can bet that Jim Kim was not their top choice.

The New York Times columnist is probably the best-known living economist in the United States, and perhaps the world.

After all, why should the secretary of the treasury have to prioritize the interests of Wall Street and the “criminal enterprise” of big finance, as Charles Ferguson, academy award-winning film-maker and political scientist, describes it.

At the end of the day, it might be great to have another high Keynesian priest in charge as it will ultimately disprove their theories forever and then we can finally move on and out of the Dark Age of Economics.

Full article here.

In Liberty,


 Add your comment
  1. I had a similar comment to a friend, who is essentially ignorant to economics in the greater sense, but reads Krugman as a progressive. I am beginning to sway him away from the tax-spend fanaticism the Keynesians are using to destroy our economy. It has not been an easy battle for me, but I am finally gaining traction to the side of common sense. A small, personal victory. To him I proclaimed, “There are two ways out of this mess: making hard choices now or dealing with the consequences of making no choices later. Regardless, you cannot get out without some degree of pain. The faster we accept the pain and coalesce to reality today, the less the massive pain will be tomorrow. You cannot give an alcoholic more booze in hopes to heal him.”

    I will gladly share your view on this one, as I share everything I read or see from the BlitzKrieg.

    For other visitors, a collection of Krugman getting a dose of pain:

    And the best ever:

  2. I am constantly trying to talk sense into those that believe we can spend ourselves into growth and out of the problems of too much debt and too much spending. “You cannot fix an alcoholic with more booze. Hard choices and pain now or complete collapse, revolt, violence, riots and severe pain down the road,” I explained.

    Watching this guy get verbal doses of reality is always fun for me:

    And a must watch classic of Krugman getting owned:

  3. Oops, duplicate, somewhat, entry. I didn’t think first comment was accepted.

  4. Bring it on, I say. If we’re screwed anyway, let them bring the system down with completely unfettered spending so that there’s no confusion after the fact about just what and just who caused our downfall.

Leave a Reply