Paul Krugman recently argued that a fake threat from space aliens would be good for the economy because the people of earth would waste a bunch of money building unnecessary defenses.
That was a bit loopy, as I noted a few days ago, but other Keynesians also have been making really weird assertions. Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture (another department that shouldn’t exist) just said that food stamps are a great form of stimulus (video at the link, for those who think this can’t possibly be true).
Makes me wonder if they’re having some sort of secret contest for who can say the strangest thing on TV. And if that’s the case, Nancy Pelosi has to be in the running for her claim that you create jobs by subsidizing joblessness.
Appearing on Judge Napolitano’s show, I explained why the Keynesian theory is misguided.
Unfortunately, Keynesians are immune to evidence. No matter how bad an economy does when the burden of government increases, they just point to their blackboard equations and claim things would be even worse without the so-called stimulus.
[…] not joking. This is why people like Paul Krugman said a fake attack by space aliens would be good for the economy because Washington would spend a bunch of money in […]
[…] not joking. This is why people like Paul Krugman said a fake attack by space aliens would be good for the economy because Washington would spend a bunch of money in […]
[…] people into food stamp dependency. And, if you can believe it, Obama’s Agriculture Secretary argued that food stamps stimulate the […]
[…] At least the New York Times didn’t try to spin this number by claiming food stamps are “stimulus.” […]
[…] At least the New York Times didn’t try to spin this number by claiming food stamps are “stimulus.” […]
[…] The Keynesian Crackup Continues: From Space Aliens to Food Stamp Stimulus […]
[…] The Keynesian Crackup Continues: From Space Aliens to Food Stamp Stimulus […]
[…] if the money is squandered on global defense against a make-believe alien attack, according to Keynesians like Paul […]
[…] if the money is squandered on global defense against a make-believe alien attack, according to Keynesians like Paul […]
[…] if the money is squandered on global defense against a make-believe alien attack, according to Keynesians like Paul […]
[…] just in case you think he’s exaggerating, keep in mind that Paul Krugman actually argued that a fake invasion from outer space would “stimulate” growth because the world would waste money building defenses against […]
[…] Proponents of big government, by contrast, also aren’t big fans of the stimulus, though they’re dissatisfied because they think Obama should have wasted even more money. […]
I am regular visitor, how are you everybody? This paragraph posted at this site
is genuinely good.
[…] between IMFers and Keynesians, which is strange because it seems like half of my time is devoted to battling statists who argue for more government spending and the other half is consumed by fights against proponents of higher […]
[…] between IMFers and Keynesians, which is strange because it seems like half of my time is devoted to battling statists who argue for more government spending and the other half is consumed by fights against proponents of higher […]
[…] last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since […]
[…] last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since […]
[…] last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since […]
[…] last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since […]
[…] last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since […]
[…] last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since […]
[…] last week, I made fun of Paul Krugman after he publicly said that a fake threat from invading aliens would be good for the economy since […]
[…] Illogical Aliens […]
Prosperity is based on production and production is based on incentives to produce.
Keynesianism is an attempt to manipulate and fool people into producing for no or little aggregate reward.
So while most people can be sometimes fooled into producing for no reward (those are not the most intelligent and thus productive people anyway) and while most people can be fooled a few times to produce for no reward, it is just not possible to consistently fool most people most of the time into poducing for no reward through macroeconomic manipulation and thus transfers of wealth across people and time– business cycle after business cycle — recession after recession.
People learn from the trickery of previous Keynesian manipulation and adjust accordingly. This learning and adaptation negates most of the fooling effect of Keynesian macro-manipulation. So the trick becomes for Keynesians to try to come up with ever new tricks, or disguised old tricks, to fool enough people into producing for no or less reward. This is why the Keynesian deception keeps retunring dressed a little differently every time. Depending on how sucessful it is at tricking enough people to produce for no reward, the Keynesian intervention may provide short term effects, typically in exchange for longer term detriment. But since the connection between short term benefit and long term detriment is often difficult to make, for many people, politicians obviously have an interest at promoting Keynesian interventionism for its short term illusive gain.
So yes, perhaps when Keynes came up with the unitial new trick — the redistributive stimulus — in the 30’s, he managed to fool most people, for a while, to make a short term difference. But the trickery of the particular manipulations used by Keynes are now known, so people have adjusted their behavior accordingly, in anticipation to what government will do to fool them into working for no reward according to the Keynesian script typically applied to each phase of the business cycle. So the effectiveness of the original Keynesian manipulation/deception methods has now worn out. Thus the perpetual search for either new tricks to fool people into working for no reward or disguise enough the old tricks so that enough people can be tricked once again.
But it is mostly the fools who fall for it. So damned smart peolple who try to evade working for the community and distant unknowns rather than working for themselves, their families, their friends, their charities….
But any time now they will either be fooled or finally, if need be, coerced to work for the big commune. The dream lives on— and America’s decline continues…
[…] fellow Dan Mitchell explains it […]
Keynes was totally against thrift, because it showed (in his words) “purposiveness”, which meant life had a purpose, which meant there was a God. As a militant homosexual and serial pædophile, he had no interest in that, so thrift went by the boards with it.
This maniacal pursuit of insanity certainly doesn’t draw any support from people who live and work in the real world. Among the growing numbers od displaced, disenfranchised and dispossessed people, this situation makes even less sense. By mixing the batter of confusion, the Federal corporation is baking the cake of civil unrest. We must literally walk away from any contact with the currency and the criminals.
$1 for food stamp spending = $1.65 in economic growth.
Now I understand why Obama wants everyone on foodstamps. That’s how he will grow us out of his debt.