Pity is for Princeton economists
How, exactly, does this guy still pull down a salary? Anywhere?
Back to Reality After 10 Year Illusion of Wealth
You know what Paul Krugman's problem is? He can't make any distinctions.
Whose wealth?
Paul is convinced that it is all his.
And that is the fuckin' problem, Professor Krugman. You got your wealth. It came with that Nobel Prize, you smug fuck. The rest is not your's. Our our's. Or anyone's except for the people who made it.
It is not good for us to think about wealth in the terms people like Paul Krugman suggest. It suggests to us that we are too weak, too dumb, too lazy, too crazy, too disabled, too what-the-fuck-ever excuse that Paul has for why he knows better how to spend peoples' money that everyone else.
Paul is so full of himself and his dubious conceptions of wealth and the economy that it has not even crossed his mind that maybe, just maybe, Americans and most peoples in the liberal democratic world are far more capable than the Paul Krugmans of the world suggest they are and that thinking otherwise is not good for them.
But you know what the beauty of it all is?
You know who they're still going to be reading a hundred years from now?
I'll give you a clue. It isn't Paul Krugman. And Karl Marx and John Keynes will be a faint memory of a bygone era of failed and foolish policy, the goals of which were better facilitated by people like Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and John Stuart Mill and Lord Acton and Mary Wolstonecraft and Annie Sullivan and people who really cared about them rather than pitying them.
Poor people can settle for Paul Krugman's pity. Or they can go get rich. Or they can go find a life they love and tell Paul Krugman where to put his smug, bullshit analyses of nothin'.
Pity is for people you don't really give a shit about. And Princeton economists.
And Paul Krugman can take his pity and shove it up his big, fat arrogant ass.
Because poor people got better things going for them.
3 comments:
Ben,
Check this out:
http://newledger.com/2009/02/deconstructing-krugman/
Francis Cianfrocca does a good job explaining how a Nobel economist can be so wrong.
I saw that, foutsc. What I hate about this guy, foutsc, is that he knows how manipulative he is. He just doesn't care. And if it did more good for people than harm (though even then, people lose track of how much they wade in the bullshit), I might be open to some fudging for a good cause. But it's not. In fact, it undermines the very people it is supposed to help. And that's what drives me crazy about it and him.
It is exactly this kind of angling that leads people to believe that they are less capable of taking advantage of all the opportunities in the world than they really are. It undermines my kids and their potential for success. And it tells an awful lot of people, "We would rather be right about these ideological questions than be honest about most peoples' capacity to do a lot of good in the world."
Francis gives Paul Krugman more credit than he deserves, I think, foutsc. Let's just say this. I would not want to study with Paul Krugman unless I could not possibly escape it. And thank goodness I live in a free world where I can read his ideas without ever having to deal with him in any position of authority, if I don't want to.
Yeah, just look at those close-set, beady eyes. That says it all. Your using the word "manipulative" to describe him triggered my reappraisal of the man. He's a beady eyed crap weasel.
Post a Comment