As previously noted here on the Patriot Perspective, Paul Krugman is a Keynesian Idiot. For someone with a Nobel prize, he seems to be quite an all-around idiot, too.
Through September, Paul Krugman has been spouting idiocy like this:
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
Yeah… There’ve already been enough electrons wasted on that particular idiocy, but I figured it would serve as a warmup for reminding us all of some more.
The Wall Street Journal back in March of 2010 published a piece called “Mirror, Mirror”. I heard someone discussing that article, and how it referenced a piece in which Krugman was supporting stimulus and economic Keynesianism and welfare, and how Krugman said it was “textbook economics”.
Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That’s because the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
Which the WSJ comes out and states:
So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl’s “bizarre point of view” is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.
In the Krugman piece, he was mocking republicans for living in a different universe. Of course, Krugman and his own textbook apparently live in different universes.
On top of this, Krugman’s support of Keynesian stimulus and welfare programs are disputed by some as being things John Maynard Keynes wouldn’t have approved of. From Reason magazine:
But Whalen isn’t simply dumping on Keynesianism, he’s bent on pointing out that even its latter-day adherents are straying far from their master’s theory. And in this, he’s surely correct. As Allen Meltzer has argued, Keynes was against the very sort of large structural deficits that characterize contemporary federal budgets and policy, believing instead that deficits should be “temporary and self-liquidating.” And Keynes believed that any sort of counter-cyclical spending by government should be directed toward increasing private investment, not simply spending current and future tax dollars on public works projects.
So even Keynes would’ve opposed this modern day Keynesianism. Keynes probably would’ve opposed fake alien invasions, too.