As an economist I have never had much patience with
Paul Krugman's economics, stuck as he is in 1940s-era Keynesian demand-side
economics. I have sometimes concluded that Krugman had rather denounce Ronald
Reagan than to acknowledge that supply-side economists have established that
fiscal policy has supply-side, not just demand-side, effects.
However, Krugman does display at times a moral
conscience. He did so on September 11 in his New York Times blog
, "The Years
of Shame." Krugman wrote that 9/11 was hijacked by "fake heros" who used the
event "to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight" and that "our
professional pundits" lent their support to the misuse of the
Perhaps Krugman meant to use the plural and say
"unrelated wars." The US government has made war on Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Libya, resulting in massive destruction of homes, infrastructure, and lives
of civilians, all in the name of one lie or the other. In addition, the US
government is conducting military operations against the populations of three
more Muslim countries -- Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia -- with extensive loss of
civilian life in Pakistan, a US ally. Drones are sent in week after week that
blow up schools, medical centers, and farm communities, and each time Washington
announces that they have killed "militants," "al Qaeda," "Taliban
Thanks to what Krugman calls "our professional
pundits" and Gerald Celente calls "presstitutes," the American people know
little if anything about the murder of countless civilians and displacement of
millions of others in these six Muslim countries, which the Bush/Obama
governments regard as "security threats," or habitats of small elements that are
"security threats," to the single super-power.
Before I continue, think for a minute about the
level of threat posed by these Muslim countries that lack internal unity, an air
force, a navy, a modern army, and nuclear ICBMs. Compare this "threat" to the
Soviet threat, which, at least, was potentially real. The Soviets had the Red Army, which had defeated
Hitler and his high-class war machine. The Soviet Union had an amazing array of
extremely powerful ICBMs with single and multiple nuclear warheads, and nuclear
submarines outfitted with nuclear-armed missiles.
Somehow we survived 46 years of this threat without
going to war. But Iraq, which all but the most stupid people on earth now know
had no "weapons of mass destruction," was such a threat that the US government
felt not only compelled to invade but also justified to lie to the United
Nations in order to attack and destroy a country that had done nothing
whatsoever to us and posed no threat whatsoever.
The same for Afghanistan. The Taliban posed no
threat whatsoever to the United States or its European allies.
Pakistan is a US ally; yet, Washington has murdered
thousands of Pakistani civilians. The liars in Washington and the presstitute
media always claim that murdered civilians are "al Qaeda terrorists." Every
time Washington blows up a hospital, a farmer's home, a school, Washington
issues a report that it has just killed some al Qaeda leader. Some of these
leaders have been reported killed multiple times.
I'm not surprised that this does not sit well with
Paul Krugman. The best thing in the Keynesians' resume is not their
economics -- although it was better, perhaps, than the economics that could not
explain the Great Depression -- but their moral conscience. Keynesian
economists, for the most part, cared about people and what happened to them. I
knew many of the Keynesians and debated before university and professional
audiences a handful of Keynesian Nobel prize-winners. I never thought that they
were callous people. I never expected to miss them.
To return to Krugman: His message comes across most
powerfully in the presstitute pundits' response to him. Michelle Malkin, whose
book on immigration I once, regrettably, reviewed favorably, misinterpreted
Krugman's courage as cowardice and called him a "smug coward
"Coward" was an epithet that the presstitutes seized
upon. A Washington Post writer, Erik Wimple, declared Krugman
After establishing Krugman to be a "coward," the
presstitutes, who delight in murdering "towel-heads" in six countries, escalated
their attack on Krugman. Peter Bella declared Krugman to be "vile" and to have
Bella's interpretation of a moral conscience as its
antithesis is a typical presstitute response. It led to attacks on the New York
Times for having a "cowardly," "bewildering," "arrogant," "vile," contributor
who "has no conscience" as a columnist.
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post declared the
New York Times for publishing Krugman's column to be "a spiritual wasteland,"
this from a "newspaper" that many regard as a CIA asset.
In other words. Shut Krugman up. Cancel his column.
We don't want to hear anything from anyone that casts doubt on Washington's
murder, maiming, and dislocation of millions of people because of a "threat"
that is a total lie. We are the exceptional nation. We are the light unto the
world. Ordinary laws do not apply to us because we are exceptional. Laws are for
underlings. We have "freedom and democracy." Anyone who doubts us is evil and a
terrorist and a pinko-liberal-commie.
It will be
interesting to see if Krugman's column survives his statement of truth. It will
tell us whether America has succumbed totally to being the land of the liars, or
whether a person of moral conscience still has a