Quote of the Week – Dear Paul Krugman: ‘I’ll see you in hell’

qotw_cropped

Krugman as usual, considers himself to be a judge of other people’s views, morals, and conscience.

I find the column title amusing.

Krugman_hell

Here’s what is so amusing and at the same time troubling about his column.

Krugman_hell2

It makes me wonder if he in fact believes in the soul and the afterlife, rather than Dawkin’s thesis that God is dead which seems to be popular with the left.

After reading Willis Eschenbach’s excellent essay on how global warming alarmism and policy hurts the poor the most, watching Dr. Matt Ridley’s uplifting video on how CO2 is helping to green the planet, seeing Steve McIntyre point out that the latest Marcott hockey stick appears to be either a statistical fabrication or unrealistic data error, and noting Dr. Savory’s simple solution for rolling back how desertifcaton leads to climate change, and knowing that Paul Krugman wouldn’t see any of this as rational skepticsim, but would instead label it a sin, while promoting policies that hamper our economy and personal freedom, weaken our defense, hurt the poor, and won’t make any measurable difference to the outcome, my response becomes quite simple.

Dear Paul Krugman,

I’ll see you in hell.

Sincerely,

Anthony Watts

About these ads

188 thoughts on “Quote of the Week – Dear Paul Krugman: ‘I’ll see you in hell’

  1. Paul Krugman’s understanding of Climate Science is on par with his understanding of economics.
    He has never seen someone else’s dollar he doesn’t want to spend.
    And he has never read papers like Marcott.

    Kinda feel sorry for the poor chap meself.

  2. “I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places.”

    – Mark Twain

  3. His opinions are no more sound when it comes to printing money endlessly, err I mean, economics.

  4. Aw, Anthony, let it go. I KNOW it has to be hard dealing with personal attacks as you continue to fight the good fight. But it is a good fight, one well worth undertaking. And history will show your efforts were in a righteous cause.

    The challenge for everyone is trying to ensure that the AGW program does not achieve its apparent goal of pointlessly bankrupting the developed world and impoverishing the developing world, leaving literally billions of people to suffer needlessly.

    You have the high ground. I hope you will not become discouraged. Your cause is just, and the work you, and others of like mind, continue will prove out in the end.

    Keep the faith.

    Felix

  5. Anthony, you are so clearly on the side of the angels in all of this that I think you best not plan on seeing Krugman on the other side. Just as you two are on opposite sides here, so will you be in the hereafter – if good sense is indeed to be rewarded in such a dramatic fashion.

  6. Krugman is ample evidence that a Nobel Prize is no indication of either intellegence, accomplishment, or common sense. There’s a reason he’s earned the nickname “Ferret-face”

  7. Ironically, his research for which he won the Nobel was in the area of trade. In that area, he is much more free market (i.e. for free trade) than his other views. Of course, that is natural as free trade is a no-brainer and even most marxists are or were for free trade.

  8. Don’t waste any pity on him. He and his ilk have done great damage to the everyday hardworking person who has had to pay a personal cost from the policies they have pushed.

  9. A bit harsh perhaps? As an atheist, I believe we can have heaven or hell right here on earth, depending on how we treat each other. However if there is a hell beyond this life, I too will meet you there. I have met people who believe they are going to heaven and I do not need to spent eternity with them ;)

  10. No surprise that statist Krugman, despite having a semi-Nobel Prize (unlike Mann), doesn’t understand science. Neo-Keynseian economic theory has repeatedly been falsified (but then little Neo would not be recognized by Mother John Maynard; it’s an absurd caricature of his mature thought). If economics were a hard science, it would long ago have gone the way of phlogiston. Their standard excuse for why its prescription for more government spending & larger deficits has never worked, but in fact always makes things worse, is that we haven’t spent enough.

    Krugman’s Nobel means that three Swedish socialists agree with him. The econ prize is faux-Nobel, but same goes for Gore & Obama’s genuine articles.

    The ability to tax breathing & most human activity is too precious to statists for them ever to abandon the myth of AGW, or whatever it might be called in future, no matter how many times the hypothesis has been shown false.

  11. A global warming denier: a person who uses the non-catastrophic and mostly natural variability of climate as a pretext to deny poor people the hope for a better life by curtailing their energy use and economic liberty.

  12. JT, sums it all up nicely. Well done, sir.

    “The ability to tax breathing & most human activity is too precious to statists for them ever to abandon the myth of AGW, or whatever it might be called in future, no matter how many times the hypothesis has been shown false.”

  13. I get so tired of being called a “denier”. It only means that the name caller has nothing else to back up their agrument than resorting to these tactics. And now I am being condemned to hell because I dare question them? Wow – it reinforces the fact that they cannot base their opinions of actual science. I ask for science. I am called a denier. I look at them and say – You are the denier. You are denying me the right to question their opinion. I also get so tired of their self righteousness. And hypocrisy.

  14. Shouldn’t an economist being giving out economics advice? Or explaining why he did not predict the economic meltdown? Perhaps, like climatology, economics is a subject which is mainly interested in telling other people how to behave.

  15. A simple random sample of mine showed we are cooling, globally, for at least the past 12 years

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    Most seem to agree with my dataset

    link here

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend

    Furthermore, my data set on maxima shows we will be cooling for some time to come.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    this will cause a shift in cloud formation and condensation, causing some places to become much cooler whilst other countries might get some GH benefit- even though they will see less sun…

    an example is Alaska (getting much cooler) and CET (getting a bit warmer, but a lot wetter…)

    People of course can ignore these results, but to ignore them is the same as ignoring the truth. The truth has a habit of showing up, eventually, see John 19-37&38 – how appropriate for this time of the year,

    (I am not worried about this except for the waste of $trillions, on so-called climate science, and expensive energy alternatives).

    Also, how on earth are we expected to do terra forming on future planets if we cannot even get the basic science of the ideal atmospheric composition right?

    Here you can see that putting up more CO2 in the air is good for you,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

    People wanting less CO2 and less H2O are actually denying their own father and mother…..
    if you go far enough back in time.\…..

  16. The libertarian right (myself included) has many, many atheists among its ranks. Far more than the left as a collective whole on a percentage basis, that’s for sure. Not to single this article out explicitly (as I’m not even sure it was intended to be pejorative) but many I’ve come across here act as if godlessness somehow equates to moral bankruptcy. As with most anything there are indeed atheists who are degenerates, but on the whole most of us are upstanding citizens just like those who choose to believe in a higher power (or powers for that matter).

    That aside, this is an extremely minor issue compared to the pure, unadulterated idiocy that he churns out with an almost uncanny regularity.

  17. I and about 10 friends have an agreement… the first guy down there gets in line for ACDC tickets. Anyone else want in?

  18. Anthony,

    You need to start looking into Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Krugman is a recent interloper and reluctant admittant of what went on, and who has been embarrassed into recognizing the truth. Check out Dr. Bill Black’s explanations about how the current financial crisis is 40X worse than the S&L crisis [MAKE SURE YOU LISTEN TO THIS]:

    Transcript:

    http://harryshearer.com/duis-id-nulla-et/

    Listen to the interview here:

    [audio src="http://harryshearer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/May_1_2011-1.mp3" /]

  19. Maybe Krugman can stop by the circle of Hell reserved for commies and visit Obama’s dad and Uncle Frank. “Hey, guys, good work on young Barry!”

  20. Bill says:
    March 15, 2013 at 11:37 am
    “Ironically, his research for which he won the Nobel was in the area of trade. In that area, he is much more free market (i.e. for free trade) than his other views. Of course, that is natural as free trade is a no-brainer and even most marxists are or were for free trade.”

    How are prices determined in a marxist economy? Marx thought the value of a good was determined by the amount of labour necessary for the production of a good. So, if I want to sell for a higher price, I need to have more coffee breaks in the factory?

  21. For the record, liberals don’t have a conscience. Someone want to relate exactly when Krugman the crappy economist suddenly became qualified to have an opinion about climate science?

  22. We’ve seen this progression many times. It is but a short step from that sort of hate-speak to tyranny. Steps along the way include being declared ‘an enemy of the people’, arrests on false pretences, re-education camps, disappearances, etc.

    It would never cross the Eco Taliban mindset that the biggest “denier” of them all is the Earth itself, which hasn’t warmed since 1998, despite all the hype. The temperature it gets to settle at is ultimately determined by variations in the sun’s spectral output. The link between varying magnetic flux from the sun, as it affects the deflection of cloud-forming cosmic radiation/particles, needs to be understood and publicised to a much greater degree.

    CO2 is a good neighbour who picked up a smoking gun as the cops arrived.

  23. Krugman once was a respectable economist, but he stopped contributing anything of economic value when he started writing for the NY Times.

    A fun game is to contrast what he writes in his column against his own academic writings from before he devolved into being a political hack.

    James Taranto at the WSJ gives a fine example here, refuting an argument in Krugman’s column with a quote from his own textbook.

    Another equally fun game is compare Krugman’s about-faces on topics depending on whether it’s the Red team or the Blue team in charge.

    Here Alex Tabarrok points out Krugman’s alarmism over the the catastrophic nature of the federal debt under Bush (circa 2003) vs. his nonchalance over the much larger federal debt under Obama (circa 2012)

  24. Nice call Anthony, course as a secular Anti-humanist that nasty piece of work is already living it.
    Today is the “Hell” they imagined, caught lying, reputation swirling around the bowl and derisive laughter rising from the crowd.
    That is hell on earth for our self styled betters and saviours.

  25. JDC says:
    March 15, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Careful what you say. From the readers here I’ve learned very much of scientific value, but also on occasion read a few comments bordering on bigotry concerning the scientific abilities of the nonbelievers among us and our ancestors.

  26. “Paul Krugman wouldn’t see any of this as rational skepticsim”

    He wouldn’t see it, period. He’s bragged he gets all his news from the left-wing echo chamber.

  27. That is not very fair of Krugman. His world view does not even allow a person to “deny global warming” out of simple ignorance, much less having sincerely held science based beliefs. It is always “personal gain” or “political reasons.”

    I would expect him to say the same about those who deny fiscal stimulus. Presumably they are just plain evil. They couldn’t be motivated by cogent economic arguments, could they?

    If he was ten times better at economics than he is at climate science, he might achieve mediocrity. Alas. . .

  28. Don’t send me to heaven, it ain’t where i should go
    ‘Cause the devil’s got a charcoal pit and a good fire down below.

    Barbecue, sliced beef and bread,
    Ribs and sausage and a cold Big Red…

    –from Robert Earl Keen’s “Barbecue”

  29. Or you could tell Krugman how to find Michael Mann (many years hence, I hope and trust after they have both enjoyed very long natural lives with time to see how many of their ideas were proved wrong)….. Reminiscent of Hamlet, when the King is asking where Polonius is,

    Claudius. Where is Polonius?

    Hamlet. In heaven. Send thither to see. If your messenger find him not
    there, seek him i’ th’ other place yourself….

  30. I have friends, political scientists, sociologists, who all share an interest at least in certain kinds of science fiction.
    ― Paul Krugman

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming might be one of them.

    Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth.
    ― Paul Krugman

    Skeptics have no power, but have the truth

  31. Now, now. Let us be careful in the accuracy of the rejoinder: While the postulated location of the said person is in little doubt given the current and future projected (linear) trends of behavior, this probability cannot be expressed with error bars (from behind Hansen’s jail bars ?) and today’s liberal standard (or non-standard) deviations.

    Also. we cannot absolutely be certain of the ability to see the said person “in hell” (from heaven) while both subjects are in the afterlife.

    While we have Lazareth’s statements affirming to the ability of viewing subjects in hell from heaven, that second-hand statement was not published in a scientifically accredited and (97 percent government-researched) peer-reviewed document.

  32. “In the afterlife ” ??!! So AGW is indeed a religion, and it now has an afterlife.

    I expect that AGW unbelievers will go to the fires of hell, to be doused in water as hot as molten brass to melt their skin and drink putrid water – while believers will have cool running streams, couches with soft cushions, fine robes, and black-eyed and busty girls who serve the best wine and sweetest fruits.

    The descriptions here of the fates of all unbelievers (kuffers) in hell and the believers in paradise, are taken from the Koran – but one expects the fates of AGW unbelievers will be much the same.

    .

  33. It’s funny how Krugman sees market failure in any free activity which then requires a government action to correct it, e.g. “driving during congestion puts a burden on other drivers so the government should charge a large fee for it.”
    It is not an “externality” that I happen to drive home when a lot of other people drive home. It’s society and how we work together and build schedules and have the freedom to live in one area but work in another.
    As for heaven or hell, well, lots of different beliefs. I think that, when this life ends, God’s grace is large enough for all of us. If I’m wrong, I’ll be in big trouble — or there won’t be any me. Shrodinger’s heaven??

  34. What is CO2? – CO2 is Bad.
    Where is CO2? – CO2 is everywhere.
    What is the original sin? – The original sin is breathing.
    Guilt, mystery, control.
    Yup! Warmism is a religion alright.

  35. Krugman walks the party line. Fiscal spending has not been a significant factor in any recovery since 1950, and it is not working now. Didn’t work for Japan and now I learn that it didn’t work for Spain. Romper and Romper 2004 is an interesting read, as is Taylor’s article on the housing crisis. Taylor uses a model to show how the housing bubble would have been much less severe had the Fed not held interest rates as low for as long as they did. It’s a model and I don’t know how much better econ models are compared to GCMs but it is interesting anyway. Benanke says the interest rates don’t correlate to the housing bubble but the housing market crashed when rates were ratcheted up. Almost as fun as the climate debate..The left without empirical data holding on to a theory despite its obvious failures.

  36. Anthony, it’s a bit disconcerting trying to keep track of your position. Sometimes you are very clear that there’s no global warming — in this post for example, where you think that Krugman is targeting you. Other times you swear up and down that you believe there *is* global warming, but not much, and anyway it’ll be a good thing.

  37. Once again, the problem here is talking out of one’s expertise. I have no doubt that Krugman is an excellent economist, and his Nobel (well, not quite Nobel, but let’s drop that area of bickering) is well earned, even though such a “Nobel” has crowned highly praised economists from all sides of thought ; that doesn’t qualify him in the least to pontificate in quantum physics, cosmology or Earth sciences. In all subjects apart from Economy, he is at par with any educated person, and certainy below par with anyone who has a good Science degree. He is no “scientist” (meaning “hard science”), only an amateur in such subjects.

  38. Reminds me of the Bishop Sheen story:

    Audience member Q: “How did Jonah spend 3 days in the belly of a whale”?
    (Bishop) A: “When I get to heaven I’ll ask him”.
    Q. “What if Jonah isn’t in heaven?”
    A. “Then you can ask him”.

    Krugman loves debt which is imposed on the following generations. So he doesn’t mind turning the USA into Zimbabwe 50 years hence, as long as it isn’t a few degrees warmer.

    Denying the truth for petty personal or political reasons is an inconceivable sin. It is also grave and if done with full will and knowledge mortal. Denying a lie is not a sin and denouncing lies as such is a righteous action.

  39. Russ R. says:
    March 15, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Krugman once was a respectable economist, but he stopped contributing anything of economic value when he started writing for the NY Times.

    ###

    All he ever did was to wrap up Marxist ideology in obfuscatory pseudo math, passing it off as economics, making other Marxist wet themselves in excitement. His Nobel prize was just a reward for fanning the Agenda. This joker is the Mike Mann of economics. The only reason why he blows wind at the NYT is because he is incapable of doing any real work.

  40. geologyjim says:
    March 15, 2013 at 11:37 am

    Krugman is ample evidence that a Nobel Prize is no indication of either intellegence, accomplishment, or common sense. There’s a reason he’s earned the nickname “Ferret-face”
    ###

    Wrong end.

  41. Howdy cdc
    I know Dr. Krugman has an Economics Nobel, which at least is better than a Peace Prize in recent decades, but heck. I’ve had enough economics to know that he is spouting economic claptrap as well as environmental nonsense.

  42. Conscience of a Liberal? The defining activity of liberals is dispensing with standards, conventions, rules, and societal beliefs. So what, pray tell, would the conscience of a liberal compare his behaviour to? Nothing but his own self-will. Thus a “Liberal’s conscience” is an oxymoron. This should adequately explain Gleick, Lewandowsky, Mann, Schneider, Schmidt, the 10-10 video, and the Climategate clique.

  43. “The Conscience of a Liberal” is quite a title. Anyone who remembers Krugman’s piece marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11, on which he disabled reader commentary, knows that the man has no conscience. I personally find him to be a despicable human being.

  44. When Krugman dies he will go to hell. There he will be faced with three doors. Behind door number one the people are tormented by fire. Behind door number two they are tortured. Behind door number three several people are standing in cow poop up to their waste drinking coffee.

    Krugman will pick door number three. Shortly after he receives his cup of coffee the devil will come in and say “OK everybody. Coffee break is over. Back on your heads”.

    Oddly Krugman will feel right at home.

  45. Sorry Anthony, but Hell is not hot enough for the likes of Krugman, Mann, Phil Jones and all the CAGW/Man-Caused Climate Change advocates. The hoax they continue to perpetrate on mankind is deserving of the worst punishment imaginable (or should that be unimaginable) in the afterlife.

  46. ” … this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin … ”

    Oh, the irony. Back in 2010, I concluded my article “The Case of the Curious Climate Covenant” ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/the_case_of_the_curious_climat.html ) with the following question:

    “So which is the bigger sin? Failing to stop a so-called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the 9th Commandment in order to be sure [skeptic] scientists’ criticisms aren’t taken seriously?”

  47. JDC says,
    “That aside, this is an extremely minor issue compared to the pure, unadulterated idiocy that he churns out with an almost uncanny regularity.” Idiocy translated almost weekly for Costa Rica’s ‘La Nacion’ readers. CR may have been the last state to adopt Krugman’s currency-exchange ‘bands.’ Is there another still suffering under this ridiculosity?

  48. When they cannot base their ideas on any actual science, I do not feel so bad about being a ‘denier’. It is they who are denying Science. I must be denying Stupidity or something similar, but certainly not Science. They are denying us the right to question their ideas.

  49. “Fiscal spending has not been a significant factor in any recovery since 1950,”

    Fiscal spending has NEVER led to any recovery, significant or otherwise.

  50. Konrad says:
    March 15, 2013 at 11:37 am
    A bit harsh perhaps? As an atheist, I believe we can have heaven or hell right here on earth, depending on how we treat each other. However if there is a hell beyond this life, I too will meet you there. I have met people who believe they are going to heaven and I do not need to spent eternity with them ;)

    The two most common questions in heaven:

    “What are you doing here?”

    “Where’s old so-and-so?” ;-)

  51. Does traffic congestion necessarily cause global warming? What about “green” technology and “green” vehicles? Were those also a deception or fraud perpetrated with ulterior motives?

    It’s interesting to observe the evolution of climate change. It was founded as global cooling, likely portending an ice age; it progressed to become global warming, climate disruption, catastrophic climate change, and finally climate change, with interspersed qualifications of human-caused or anthropogenic. What’s next, will they announce a consensus that they lack a consensus, other than a consensus of dreams for material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification?

    It was annoying when they claimed a consensus was a valid scientific construct. It was annoying when they described normal as constant or predictable outside of a limited frame of reference. The lost all credibility when they insisted on conflating science and philosophy (or what may well be their religion).

    That said, if they would shift their focus to risk management for events which may have natural or artificial drivers, and suggest mitigating measures commensurate to the threat and underlying uncertainty, then they may regain some semblance of credibility. Not, however, as scientists, but as stake-holders in our common, mischievous reality.

  52. vukcevic says:
    March 15, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    The hell’s warming has nothing to do with the incoming TSI, it’s mostly anthropogenic!

    Good one :)

  53. The burning at first would probably be worst
    But in time the pain may soften
    Whilst those who are bored with praising the Lord
    Would become more so by praising him often.

  54. Dear Paul Krugman,

    I’ll see you in hell.

    Sincerely,

    Anthony Watts

    Anthony –

    I’m not sure you can make that statement since there is no evidence you will be able to visit Krugman when he is a resident in Hell.

    Moreover, if it is a possibility, I would not recommend you chance it. I mean, can one really trust the Gatekeepers of Hell to let you leave, especially when one of the things that may make Krugman’s Hell would be for you to see him there.

    :)

  55. To Mr Paul Krugman
    From Saint Peter, Pearly Gates Retirement Estate

    Dear Mr Krugman,

    I am instructed by a 2:1 vote of the Trinity to reply to your Epistle. You wish to assign suitably qualified applicants to join you in The Other Place (TOP). You are not delegated to make these decisions – I am. If this demarcation dispute recurs, I will send you to TOP before the cock crows three times.

    You must understand that these are times of stringency. The flames of Hell have been shown to be major contributors to CAGW. It is necessary to seek less polluting fuels like MSM newspaper and modern artworks. Indeed they make very good torture material in their own right.

  56. You must excuse Krugman, he prob’ly is like most of us that assume the scientists are just normal scientist and not the evil comic book figures who are working on world domination, as readers of this web site know well.

    But you must also excuse Antony, who forgot to mention that the major point of Krugman’s comment was about an article on the use of alternate transportation. He most probably knows that most of you would not in the least be interested in such an article, and in this, I agree.

    Excse the spellling.

  57. Since the beginning of time, those who have questioned and refused to believe in decreed settled matters have been proven right. Krudman is trying to intimidate others not to look any closer into AGW because when we find the truth they will lose their ability to control the masses and also will have to live with the shame of all the damage they have done. He is starting to see the end of power to control and also sees the tar and feathers’ coming his way…….

  58. Anthony,
    “Hell” is actually a small village near Trondheim Airport in Norway, It freezes over every year.
    Perhaps Krugman does accept your invite to meet him there.

  59. Just been re-reading the Divine Comedy, but I can’t seem to find the circle assigned to deniers.

  60. “But can anyone deny that more traffic means more traffic congestion?”

    trafamadore, I think Krugman was speaking squarely to you.You must obey your overlord, so that he, and a selected few, may travel without congestion.

  61. Great Anarch…
    There wasn’t a circle of Dante’s Inferno devoted to deniers… but there was one put up for liars. The self-serving kind made out especially poorly as I recall.

  62. There is no Nobel prize for economics, it is officially called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. Economists bought themselves a prize to lend credility to their otherwise useless and quasi-fraudulent cargo-cult. that is not to say their aren’t bright economists like Ross McKitrick, but their utility stems from astute observation of human behaviour, and has very little to do with wild imaginings of economics. There is nothing empirical to see here, move along, move along.

  63. trafamadore says:
    March 15, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    “You must excuse Krugman, he prob’ly is like most of us that assume the scientists are just normal scientist and not the evil comic book figures who are working on world domination, as readers of this web site know well.”

    Oh then you obviously haven’t heard of the last report of the WBGU, in which the PIK’s personnel calls for world domination.

    http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

    Every comic book style villain conspiracy becomes true in the world of policy-sanctioned warmism. Still waiting for a photo of Schellnhuber stroking his cat…

  64. He’ll is an awful place. Don’t take it lightly.

    Krugman is a former advisor to ENRON. ’nuff said.

  65. Krugman seems to have forgotten at least one of the deadly sins, pride. Thinking you know it all, when you don’t, then advocating policies that hurt people, AND which fail to fix the problem, then strutting around like a peacock claiming to be speaking for the Good is just, well, I don’t think God (if he/she/it exists) would like that one bit.

  66. Anthony –

    You are doing a great service with this blog, and my hope is that you are reaching enough people with it to spur some popular, grass-roots action to fight global warming alarmism.

    As I read the posts here, it is so plain that there are so many of us laymen, as well as practicing scientists who can see through the AGW fantasy. But venting on a blog isn’t going to get the job done of putting a stop to this craziness. We skeptics need to organize, compel the media to give us air time and front-page space (by court action if necessary), and advertise our views and our evidence against AGW to the publlic in any way we can – everything from billboards to bumper stickers saying “Fight Global Warming ALARMISM” (and if anyone regularly posting here has any betrter ideas, why, please come forth with them – I can’t think of everything or be entirely sure what I’m suggesting would work).

    Anthony, I live in Chico myself, and I would welcome an opportunity to meet with you and discuss what we can do to build up some mojo in the fight against the AGW craziness, You can reach me by email at the_last_composer@yahoo.com.

    Sincerely, Chad Wozniak

  67. When you’re driven by ideology, it destroys and replaces it with “anything-I-can-do-and-get-away-with-is-A-OK-because-it-serves-the-CAUSE!” The credo of the alarmies for sure.

  68. “Dear Paul Krugman,

    I’ll see you in hell.

    Sincerely,

    Anthony Watts”

    So Anthony, you’re meeting Krugman in Washington, DC? :-)

    vukcevic says (March 15, 2013 at 2:50 pm): “The hell’s warming has nothing to do with the incoming TSI, it’s mostly anthropogenic!”

    Looks like Trenberth will finally find his “missing” heat! :-)

  69. numerobis wrote;

    March 15, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    “Anthony, it’s a bit disconcerting trying to keep track of your position. Sometimes you are very clear that there’s no global warming — in this post for example, where you think that Krugman is targeting you. Other times you swear up and down that you believe there *is* global warming, but not much, and anyway it’ll be a good thing.”

    I am also confused Anthony, does the “greenhouse effect” exist and human contributions will be minor, or is this basic underpinning of “climate science” incorrect and we have absolutely nothing to worry about ?

    Perhaps you are still evaluating the evidence ?

    I certainly respect the policies of your blog and the “crowd sourcing” aspect has hopefully spread some different perspectives about the topic to your readers. Perhaps it’s time to allow a few of those “cranks” to make their case that the “greenhouse effect” has been mischaracterized and it in fact has no effect on the average temperature of the Earth ?

    Willis has certainly explained how he believes it (the GHE) works many times, maybe it’s time for the “point – counterpoint” stage of your blog ?

    Just thinking here, I sleep soundly every night knowing that if there is a Hell I won’t reside there after I depart because my beliefs have always been based on finding the truth.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  70. Paul Krugman is like P.T. Barnum. He’s not a true economist, he’s not a scientist and he certainly is not a journalist. Yet he has crowned himself the moral authority on everything from tax increases to climate change. Without the NY Times supporting his pathetic column he would be unemployable. And NYT wonders why their subscriber rate is plummeting!

  71. “Progressives” seem to be in a bit of a pickle. They don’t want to accept a personal god, but they still want their idea of justice to be carried out by a non existent god in a non existent afterlife. Maybe that is why they are working so hard to replace god with a religion of socialism. The one true moral code for all of mankind and for all time has been delivered by the prophet Marx, and heretics must be punished.

  72. Paul Krugman on those who verbalize dissent with his environmental views:
    “may you be punished in the afterlife” (a curse)
    “an almost inconceivable sin”

    Premises
    1. The authority to define sin presumes divine authority.
    2. The authority to differentiate levels of sin is either a claim that one is god
    OR presumes access to specific revelation from G/god.
    3. The authority to curse presumes access to divine justice and power outside of the material realm.

    Conclusions
    All of the above are claims about the divine order and are hence religious claims.
    Ergo: Krugman’s environmental views are religious.

    So far as I know, pretty much all religions admit to being non-verifiable (Christianity aside). Hence, as a matter of practice, converting Krugman and his acolytes will be nigh impossible. Those who differ are apostates, heretics, witches — and as such must be feared, censored and shunned. I fear that our scientific arguments might be pretty ineffective, but I don’t know how to use religious style strategies against environmental alarmism.

  73. The smugness & self-riteousness of Krugman is revolting. For that matter, any one with that level of smugness & self-riteousness, regardless of politics, is revolting. I don’t know what kind of world they have create for themselves, but anyone who tries to live in a black & white kind of world doesn’t live in the real world.

    The real world is shades of gray. In the real world, both ends of political views have validity and neither side of an issue is totally correct. When I was younger & hadn’t experienced the real world, I too thought of most things in terms of black & white, no shades of gray. But with age & experience I have realized how wrong I was. Those , who at what sure be a mature age as Krugman, have clearly failed to grow up & observe & appreciate the reality of the world around them.

    Collectively, we need to try to recognize our common grounds in the gray so that we can move forward together. We need to strive to be less self-riteous & try to put our selves in the shoes of those we don’t agree with & try to see the world through their eyes & understand that, for the most part, people are try to do what they see as positive thing, even if we don’t agree with the way they would go about it. And we need to encourage the smug & self-riteous on the fringes to come to the center & find common ground. So, what could we say to Paul Krugman as a community that would help difuse the smugness & self-riteousness? Not a rhetorical question & not one that I necessarily have an answer to.

  74. Krugman hasn’t been “all there’ in the longest time. He’s an embarrassment to other economists. I wouldn’t take anything he says seriously; nobody else does.

  75. The United States is a country that has its own currency – can’t run out of cash because we print the money.

    Oh my. You are in more trouble than you know.

  76. I don’t normally put silliness like this on here, but I can’t get the song out of my mind.
    “I’m a believer” as sung by Paul Krugman (with apologies to the Monkees and Neil Diamond)
    I thought truth was only true in fairytales
    Meant for someone else but not for me
    Deniers were out to get me
    That’s the way it seemed
    Disappointment haunted all my dreams
    Chorus w 86 part harmony (the Consensus Scientist Singers)-
    Then I read Mike Mann, now I’m a believer
    Not a trace of doubt in my mind
    I’m in love, I’m a believer
    I couldn’t leave CAGW if I tried

    (yeah that last line is a little rough. Anyone have a short word for CAGW?)

  77. Jeff L says:
    March 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    The smugness & self-riteousness of Krugman is revolting. ……….
    So, what could we say to Paul Krugman as a community that would help difuse the smugness & self-riteousness? Not a rhetorical question & not one that I necessarily have an answer to.

    Paul,
    Accept responsibility for your own actions and Stop Exhaling. Do it Now. You are polluting our Planet. Your continued respiration is truly and succinctly ‘Living in Denial’.

    MtK

  78. “But can anyone deny that more drivers means more traffic congestion?”

    Make more roads until there is no more traffic congestion.

    “But still, this is a totally obvious case for government intervention that’s staring us in the face every time we hit the road.”

    Yes, make more roads until there is no more traffic congestion. That’s what the market wants Mr. Krugman, Stop denying the market forces. By the way, less congestion, less CO2.

  79. Leg writes:

    “I’m in love, I’m a believer
    I couldn’t leave CAGW if I tried”

    How about:
    I’m in love, I’m a believer
    In the Deceiver’s vicious Lie.

  80. A couple of years ago I read online somewhere that “everybody knows” that Krugman’s NYT columns are written by his wife.

  81. or to bring it ’round to Krugman’s original statement:
    …You’re a deceiver and you’ll fry.

  82. Mr. Krugman is criminally incompetent at best as an economist. As commentary on climate science he is a vapid breeze in the branches of a vast willow tree of buffoons…
    Well said Anthony, but I hope you never have to see that clown anywhere especially not in hell.

  83. KevinK says (March 15, 2013 at 6:01 pm): ‘Perhaps it’s time to allow a few of those “cranks” to make their case that the “greenhouse effect” has been mischaracterized and it in fact has no effect on the average temperature of the Earth ?’

    Been there, done that. For a recent example, check the very long comment thread to this article:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/

    Enjoy.

  84. Krugman’s fundamental error is his leap from “This has bad side effects” to “This must be banned.”
    He acknowledges that mitigating alternatives like trains reduce the problem, but his preferred approach is to ban it completely. He doesn’t seem to consider that the ban he would impose is a negative externality upon the users that is far greater than the one he seeks to solve.
    Nowhere does he consider alternatives such as more roads, work from home, flexitime, etc. which will leave those who want to drive at that time free to drive.
    I understand the temptation of his thinking, of course. If I were like Krugman, I’d think the solution to his verbal pollution is to ban it outright.

  85. Hans Erren says:
    March 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    Anthony,
    “Hell” is actually a small village near Trondheim Airport in Norway, It freezes over every year.

    I laughed when I read this! I’ve been to Hell! And back! For real, in 1991! If I remember right there was a sign on the train station that read “Gods Ekspedisjon”. Really! (If you know a little Norwegian you’ll know the message has nothing to do with religion) Anyway, still laughing….

  86. Solutions are not what Krugman wants. No, Krugman is only interested in slavery to Big Government for all of us. He’s an acolyte of BG and gets paid accordingly. That’s why he’s self-righteous, pompous, deceitful, and devoid of truth. He’ll do anything and everything his masters ask.

    He’s basically sold his soul for a mess of pottage.

  87. Robertv says:
    March 15, 2013 at 11:51 am
    Schwartz Slams Krugman

    Schwartz is ignorant of the fact that his country, Spain, gave up its sovereign currency for a foreign currency, the Euro. What the hell does he expect? He’s a g.d. slave to the EU now, a union of unelected officials without a governing body that can set fiscal policy.

  88. 3×2 says:
    March 15, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    The United States is a country that has its own currency – can’t run out of cash because we print the money.
    Oh my. You are in more trouble than you know.

    3×2, you don’t understand our monetary system. We are sovereign. This fiction that we can go broke is tantamount to the global warming scaremongering. Educate yourself by investigating.

  89. I see Krugman knows as little about climatology as he does about economics, and even less about morality than his combined understanding of economics and climatology.

    Don’t you just love the arrogance, elitism, gall and condescension of Liberals?

    It’s only surpassed by what i call, leftist irony.

  90. Krugman should be damned glad that Willis never had his fancy caught by . . .
    Post WWII – “The Dismal Science”, During Obama – “The Black Hole Science”, Post Obama – “The Extinction Event Science”

  91. Matt in Houston says:
    March 15, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    Mr. Krugman is criminally incompetent at best as an economist.

    You need to do your homework. The problem is that Krugman hasn’t gone for enough. You don’t know zip about the economy, so quit repeating Sean Hannity nonsense. Check out neweconomicperspectives.org.

  92. SAMURAI says:
    March 15, 2013 at 10:30 pm
    I see Krugman knows as little about climatology as he does about economics

    Krugman knows ZERO about the climate. He’s using an operating metaphor that’s false. His knowledge about economics is a moving target.

  93. Oh Well. I’m sorry Anthony’s hearing Issues probably preclude appreciating the foreboding, heavy, low scale Piano Intro to this: Dum – Dah, Dah Dum Dum

    Ballad of a Thin Mann

    You walk into the room
    With your Dataset in your hand
    You see somebody measuring
    And you say, “Who is that man ?”
    You try so hard
    But you don’t understand
    Just what they’ll say
    When you get published.

    Because something’s not happening here
    And you really wish it was
    Don’t you, Mister Mann ?

    You raise up your head
    And you say, “CO2’s gonna Kill”
    And somebody points to you and says
    “It Will?”
    And you say, “Here’s A Hockey Stick ”
    And somebody else says, “You’re Sick”
    And you say, “Oh my God
    Am I here all alone ?”

    Because something’s not happening here
    And you really wish it was
    Don’t you, Mister Mann ?

    You Cash in your Paycheck
    And you go watch the geek
    Who immediately walks up to you
    When he hears you speak
    And says, “How does it feel
    To be such a freak ?”
    And you say, “Mr Vice President?”
    As he hands you a Grant.

    Because something’s not happening here
    And you really wish it was
    Don’t you, Mister Mann ?

    You have many contacts
    Among the Tree-Ring- Jacks
    Who make up facts
    When someone attacks your imagination
    But nobody has any respect
    Anyway they already expect
    You To all give a check
    To Climate-Model-Inventing Organizations.
    You’ve been with the PHD’s
    And they’ve all liked your looks
    With great Alarmists you have
    Discussed Deniers and Crooks
    You’ve been through all of
    AL Gore’s books
    You’re not all that well read,
    It’s well known.

    Because something’s not happening here
    And you really wish it was
    Don’t you, Mister Mann ?

    Well, the Bullshit-Finders, they come up to you
    And then they kneel
    One is named Willis
    Their Minds are like Steel
    And without further notice
    They ask you how it feels
    And say, “Here are your errors back,
    Thanks for the loan”.

    Because something’s not happening here
    And you really wish it was
    Don’t you, Mister Mann ?

    Now you see this one-Eared Blogger
    Shouting the word “What?”
    And you say, “For what reason ?”
    And he says, “Your Method Sucks”
    And you say, “What does this mean ?”
    And he screams back, “Show Your Stuff
    Give me some proofs
    Or else go home”.

    Because something’s not happening here
    And you really wish it was
    Don’t you, Mister Mann ?

    Well, you walk into the room
    Like a Big-Shot and then you frown
    You put your Hockey Stick in your pocket
    And your Equations on the ground
    There ought to be a law
    Against you comin’ around
    You should be made
    To learn Classical Science Method.

    Because something’s not happening here
    And you really wish it was
    Don’t you, Mister Mann ?

  94. “You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so — this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin). …”

    Mr Krugman seems to lack a sense of proportion.

    What I mean is that, if denial of global warming is an almost inconceivable sin, then how would Mr. Krugman classify, say Stalin’s purges, Mao’s millions of dead, Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, or the reign of terror of Idi Amin, Vlad the Impaler, or, of course, the Holocaust?

    The list of inhuman acts done by humans to other humans in the name of whatever the current “-‘ism” is, is so long and so terrible that it makes Mr. Krugman’s assertion of “sin” pale to an insignificant act [even if it were true].

    Sheesh!

  95. F Ross: “What I mean is that, if denial of global warming is an almost inconceivable sin, . .”

    It is, when you’re Hysterical.. . . . . BTW, Where’s Bill Mckibben? Saw him earlier.

  96. @ZT:

    Economics is a very diverse field. Part “hard science” ( the folks doing things like econometrics are at least trying to get to a data driven perspective) and part “modern art” (especially the folks from the Krugman camp who think they can water color the economy to any state they wish). In between there is a very large body of very well proven descriptive science. Things like “elasticity of demand” that defines and measures an effect on demand from changing a related variable, such as price. Very simple. Very clear. Very well proven and even measured.

    Sadly, the field also, by definition, encompasses Marxist Communism (as it is an economic system, just a lousy one) and various Socialist Economic Systems (including Lange Type Market Socialism that is the best fit for the United States as of Obama – complete with the hallmark “avoidance of bankruptcy” and turning major enterprises over the the workers as in GM where bondholders got their rights shafted while labor unions got ownership shares and government partial nationalization was used. All defining features of that type.) So we have to learn both the capitalist and the socialist / communist systems / methods or theories.

    My degree is in Econ, so I can claim to be an economist. I had to learn both free market capitalism (that doesn’t exist in the world) and communism. Along with the Mixed Economy which is what we have now. ( a half way house of sorts between those two).

    So when dealing with the opinion of “An Economist”, you first need to ask: “What type?”. As they can legitimately be anywhere on the spectrum from Full Libertarian Free Market, to Chicago School to Hayek and the Austrians to Samuelson Mixed Economy, and Lange Type Socialist and on to full blown State Marxist Capitalist. All of them are Economists. And, as folks in the USSR did make and distribute stuff they had an economy. (Basically, economics asks and tries to describe / answer “Who makes what for whom?”. If you are doing that, it is an economy. It can be a ‘command economy’ aka communism or a market economy or several other types.)

    So since partly it is descriptive of what is done, it must be able to describe what is done in bad systems as much as in good ones. Just like botanists describe species that failed and are extinct or not doing very well. Some even love various pest species. That doesn’t mean botany is not a science…

    So please, do not denigrate economics for having socialists and communists in it, trying to describe their bad systems. It’s just part of the job. But do denigrate the economists who can’t tell that they are bad systems…

    (BTW, market economics has a lot of fleas too… a couple of years of classes worth… )

    @ policycritic says:
    March 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm (Edit)

    Matt in Houston says:
    March 15, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    Mr. Krugman is criminally incompetent at best as an economist.

    You need to do your homework. The problem is that Krugman hasn’t gone for enough. You don’t know zip about the economy, so quit repeating Sean Hannity nonsense.

    Sirah, I am an economist and IMHO Mr. Krugman is sadly afflicted with broken ideas about economic systems, seriously out of touch with reality of how they function, clueless about markets and real competition, and nearly criminally incompetent in many areas at best as an economist. I have done my homework (many years of it to bag the sheepskin), and have no idea what Sean Hannity has to say on the issue (as he’s not as cute as the lady on the the Business Channel opposite his time slot ;-) In short, I do know about the economy (rather more than most folks will tolerate my “sharing”) and the recommendations of Mr. Krugman are lethal to economic growth, recovery, and stability. They are fun economic theories and fantasies, but disconnected from the real economy.

    Oh and “new monetary theory” that you can print your way to prosperity and sovereign debt doesn’t matter is just a load of speculative crap that has repeatedly failed. See Greece for one example. Spain for another. Argentina several times in the last 50 years. Zimbabwe. Germany during hyperinflation. Oh heck, just pick one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hanke_Krus_Hyperinflation_Table.pdf

    I think we’ve tested those theories quite enough to have a reliable answer…

    Hungary1 Aug. 1945 Jul. 1946 Jul. 1946 4.19 × 1016% 207% 15.0 hours Pengő Consumer
    Zimbabwe2 Mar. 2007 Mid-Nov. 2008 Mid-Nov. 2008 7.96 × 1010% 98.0% 24.7 hours Dollar Implied Exchange
    Rate*
    Yugoslavia3 Apr. 1992 Jan. 1994 Jan. 1994 313,000,000% 64.6% 1.41 days Dinar Consumer
    Republika Srpska†4 Apr. 1992 Jan. 1994 Jan. 1994 297,000,000% 64.3% 1.41 days Dinar Consumer
    Germany5 Aug. 1922 Dec. 1923 Oct. 1923 29,500% 20.9% 3.70 days Papiermark Wholesale
    Greece6 May. 1941 Dec. 1945 Oct. 1944 13,800% 17.9% 4.27 days Drachma Exchange Rate‡
    China§7 Oct. 1947 Mid-May 1949 Apr. 1949 5,070% 14.1% 5.34 days Yuan Wholesale for
    Shanghai
    Free City of Danzig8 Aug. 1922 Mid-Oct. 1923 Sep. 1923 2,440% 11.4% 6.52 days German Papiermark Exchange Rate**
    Armenia9 Oct. 1993 Dec. 1994 Nov. 1993 438% 5.77% 12.5 days Dram & Russian
    Ruble Consumer
    Turkmenistan††10 Jan. 1992 Nov. 1993 Nov. 1993 429% 5.71% 12.7 days Manat Consumer
    Taiwan11 Aug. 1945 Sep. 1945 Aug. 1945 399% 5.50% 13.1 days Yen Wholesale for Taipei
    Peru12 Jul. 1990 Aug. 1990 Aug. 1990 397% 5.49% 13.1 days Inti Consumer
    Bosnia and
    Herzegovina13 Apr. 1992 Jun. 1993 Jun. 1992 322% 4.92% 14.6 days Dinar Consumer
    France14 May 1795 Nov. 1796 Mid-Aug. 1796 304% 4.77% 15.1 days Mandat Exchange Rate
    China15 Jul. 1943 Aug. 1945 Jun. 1945 302% 4.75% 15.2 days Yuan Wholesale for
    Shanghai
    Ukraine16 Jan. 1992 Nov. 1994 Jan. 1992 285% 4.60% 15.6 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Poland17 Jan. 1923 Jan. 1924 Oct. 1923 275% 4.50% 16.0 days Marka Wholesale
    Nicaragua18 Jun. 1986 Mar. 1991 Mar. 1991 261% 4.37% 16.4 days Córdoba Consumer
    Congo (Zaire) 19 Nov. 1993 Sep. 1994 Nov. 1993 250% 4.26% 16.8 days Zaïre Consumer
    Russia††20 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 245% 4.22% 17.0 days Ruble Consumer
    Bulgaria21 Feb. 1997 Feb. 1997 Feb. 1997 242% 4.19% 17.1 days Lev Consumer
    Moldova22 Jan. 1992 Dec. 1993 Jan. 1992 240% 4.16% 17.2 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Russia / USSR23 Jan. 1922 Feb. 1924 Feb. 1924 212% 3.86% 18.5 days Ruble Consumer
    Georgia24 Sep. 1993 Sep. 1994 Sep. 1994 211% 3.86% 18.6 days Coupon Consumer
    Tajikistan††25 Jan. 1992 Oct. 1993 Jan. 1992 201% 3.74% 19.1 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Georgia26 Mar. 1992 Apr. 1992 Mar. 1992 198% 3.70% 19.3 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Argentina27 May 1989 Mar. 1990 Jul. 1989 197% 3.69% 19.4 days Austral Consumer
    Bolivia28 Apr. 1984 Sep. 1985 Feb. 1985 183% 3.53% 20.3 days Boliviano Consumer
    Belarus††29 Jan. 1992 Feb. 1992 Jan. 1992 159% 3.22% 22.2 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Kyrgyzstan††30 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 157% 3.20% 22.3 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Kazakhstan††31 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 141% 2.97% 24.0 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Austria32 Oct. 1921 Sep. 1922 Aug. 1922 129% 2.80% 25.5 days Crown Consumer
    Bulgaria33 Feb. 1991 Mar. 1991 Feb. 1991 123% 2.71% 26.3 days Lev Consumer
    Uzbekistan††34 Jan. 1992 Feb. 1992 Jan. 1992 118% 2.64% 27.0 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Azerbaijan35 Jan. 1992 Dec. 1994 Jan. 1992 118% 2.63% 27.0 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Congo (Zaire)36 Oct. 1991 Sep. 1992 Nov. 1991 114% 2.57% 27.7 days Zaïre Consumer
    Peru37 Sep. 1988 Sep. 1988 Sep. 1988 114% 2.57% 27.7 days Inti Consumer
    Taiwan38 Oct. 1948 May 1949 Oct. 1948 108% 2.46% 28.9 days Taipi Wholesale for Taipei
    Hungary39 Mar. 1923 Feb. 1924 Jul. 1923 97.9% 2.30% 30.9 days Crown Consumer
    Chile40 Oct. 1973 Oct. 1973 Oct. 1973 87.6% 2.12% 33.5 days Escudo Consumer
    Estonia††41 Jan. 1992 Feb. 1992 Jan. 1992 87.2% 2.11% 33.6 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Angola42 Dec. 1994 Jan. 1997 May 1996 84.1% 2.06% 34.5 days Kwanza Consumer
    Brazil43 Dec. 1989 Mar. 1990 Mar. 1990 82.4% 2.02% 35.1 days Cruzado & Cruzeiro Consumer
    Democratic Republic
    of Congo44 Aug. 1998 Aug. 1998 Aug. 1998 78.5% 1.95% 36.4 days Franc Consumer
    Poland45 Oct. 1989 Jan. 1990 Jan. 1990 77.3% 1.93% 36.8 days Złoty Consumer
    Armenia††46 Jan. 1992 Feb. 1992 Jan. 1992 73.1% 1.85% 38.4 days Russian Ruble Wholesale
    Tajikistan47 Oct. 1995 Nov. 1995 Nov. 1995 65.2% 1.69% 42.0 days Ruble Wholesale
    Latvia48 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 Jan. 1992 64.4% 1.67% 42.4 days Russian Ruble Consumer
    Turkmenistan††49 Nov. 1995 Jan. 1996 Jan. 1996 62.5% 1.63% 43.4 days Manat Consumer
    Philippines50 Jan. 1944 Dec. 1944 Jan. 1944 60.0% 1.58% 44.9 days Japanese War Notes Consumer
    Yugoslavia51 Sep. 1989 Dec. 1989 Dec. 1989 59.7% 1.57% 45.1 days Dinar Consumer
    Germany52 Jan. 1920 Jan. 1920 Jan. 1920 56.9% 1.51% 46.8 days Papiermark Wholesale
    Kazakhstan53 Nov. 1993 Nov. 1993 Nov. 1993 55.5% 1.48% 47.8 days Tenge & Russian
    Ruble Consumer
    
  97. so somebody who believes there is an afterlife, worships at the Church of cAGW – no surprise there >;-)~

  98. The estimable Matt Ridley personally thanked me for alerting him to the 7/12/12 YouTube of economist Pedro Schwartz “schooling” Paul Krugman in Barcelona. The clip relates to Master Krugman’s penchant for opining outside his area of expertise.

  99. @numerobis & KevinK:

    I can’t speak for Anthony, but there is a basic flaw in the way your question is phrased. ( In Buddhist terms it would get a MU! and whack with a stick).

    Any statement of “trend” in temperature must include a time scale.

    Temperature are ALWAYS rising, falling, and staying the same. I you don’t specify your time scale, you can have no answer. It’s all about picking the end points, you see.

    So today both rose (in the morning) and cooled (in the evening).
    The winter fell, then rose into spring.
    The PDO was cold phase from about the ’50s to mid ’70s and we had the New Little Ice Age Scare (courtesy of some of the same folks as AGW BTW)
    Then it swapped to warm phase and we’ve had Global Warming! Gasp!!
    Now it’s swapped back to cooling and we’ve had stasis as the curve inflects oh so slowly.

    Over 5000 years, we’ve cooled. A lot. Over 200 years, we’ve warmed.
    Over 20,000 years we’ve rocketed up in temperature.
    Over 4 million we are sliding into the freezer.

    So perhaps you can correct your question by stating “Over what time frame”?

    FWIW, solely from my potentially flawed recollections, Anthony has said he thinks things have not warmed in the last dozen or so years (as that is what the data say), but that there was a small warming from the ’70s and a larger warming out of the Little Ice Age. But that it is not yet possible to state how much of the instrumental record is accurate enough, due to bad station siting, to make claims of the small amount and high precision claimed by AGW fanatics.

    Oh, and given that the Little Ice Age warming happened over several hundred years without the benefit of human CO2 flux, and that it is absolutely ordinary in the range of historical swings of temperatures, attributing any of modern temperature state or change to CO2 causes is rampant speculation at best.

    So, ah hem, perhaps you ought to “try again” to get your phrasing right…

  100. policycritic says:
    3×2, you don’t understand our monetary system. We are sovereign. This fiction that we can go broke is tantamount to the global warming scaremongering. Educate yourself by investigating.

    Oh God, more of that Modern Monetary Theory cra…ud..

    This makes the typical error of confounding printed pretty pieces of paper with real value.

    Printing trainloads of currency (it isn’t really money then, money has the property “store of value” that currency need not have. They used to teach that distinction at University. It looks like the MMT folks like to ignore it) simple spreads the “going broke” around to involuntary participants. That is, anyone holding currency as that value evaporates in inflation.

    The end game is the same, it just takes a bit longer for the value squandering to finish as you need to not only spend all the value in the government accounts, but all the value in all the pockets of all the currency holders via inflating it away. That is ‘going broke’, but ends in a national hyperinflationary “going broke” instead of in a government austerity and can’t make the payroll going broke.

    In short, you pay back the nominal “bills due” but can’t pay the actual “value due”. In both cases you are reneging on the “promise to pay”. In one case by not delivering sufficient money to cover the value owed. In the MMT way by delivering the currency devoid of purchasing power and value. It’s still broke.

    FWIW, MMT grew out of a distortion of Keynes and Chartalism. The wiki isn’t too bad:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism

    The basic flaw in it comes from ignoring the 2nd half of Keynes. What he really said was that governments could deficit spend to get out of economic troubles for a short period of time AND if they carried a budget surplus when things got better. MMT tries to ignore the ‘carry a surplus’ half and want’s deficit spending in perpetuity. THAT is what leads to debasing the currency, the hidden taxation of inflation, and eventually to a hyperinflationary collapse. (as shown dozens of times in history up above. It’s not a theory, it’s an observable.)


    MMT therefore does not support the notion, as some Keynesians do, that budget surpluses are always necessary in periods of high effective demand.
    According to the framework outlined above, budget surpluses remove net savings; in a time of high effective demand, this may lead to a private sector reliance on credit to finance consumption patterns. Rather, MMT suggests that continual budget deficits are necessary for a growing economy that wants to avoid deflation. MMT only advocates budget surpluses when the economy has excessive aggregate demand, and is in danger of inflation.

    In lay terms “print your way to prosperity” and “growth through increasing debt”.

    This fails for several reasons (that likely don’t interest most folks here, so I’ll be brief – at the risk of incomplete).

    First off, the aggregate market sees what is going on and reacts. Folks pull back on their own contributions to a recover when they see government spending like a drunken sailor and start doing things like buying gold instead of investing in plant and equipment.

    Government spending isn’t “investment” and so does not increase net wealth. It is consumption, so consumes wealth. Too much of it is destructive to wealth levels.

    In our present global economy where China is the maker of “stuff”, national spending to excess by the U.S. Government will cause China to have increased demand for goods, not the USA. As we will never have “excessive aggregate demand” (since it is going to China) we will simply keep printing money to worthlessness all to no avail.

    During times of economic ‘hollowing out’ via mercantilist policies (such as those from China) debasing the currency relative to other currencies doesn’t “fix it”. China has a currency peg, so it mostly just exports some inflation to China. Having two countries inflate while one sucks the wealth and manufacturing capacity out of the other is not helped by having our currency debased and that value inflated away as well. The policy of ever more money printing will not change those mercantilist policies, nor get rid of the currency peg, nor lead to any increase in ‘aggregate demand’ for US production.

    The notion that you can print more currency and not dilute the value of it is simply broken on the face of it. There is an identity. That identity says that the total goods sold is a product of the quantity of money and the velocity of money ( how often it changes hands). If you had $1000 of money, and it changes hands 5 times in a year, you had $5000 of Total Trade. What the government can do is when money V – velocity – slows down (as it does during recessions / depressions) it can help hold V up by continuing to spend. Yet eventually V will pick back up again. at that time it must withdraw money supply and spend less or there will be a higher product of Q quantity and V since V is now higher. Simply printing more does nothing to fix WHY the V dropped. Nor does it mean you can ignore that there is more Q now. As soon as V picks pack up, QV is larger and by definition you have inflation.

    So on the one hand it doesn’t actually fix any of the real problems. It is just a ‘stop gap’ to keep QV about steady and prevent total from dropping. But it brings with it the essential requirements to a) Fix the real problems so you don’t end up in stagflation. and b) Withdraw the excess Q as soon as V is back to normal or even just headed that way fast.

    Yet when did you ever see Government spend less. So it always violates that last step. So EVERY monetary 1/2 Keynesian “fix” always ends up with an inflationary kicker. And when did government ever really fix the real problem? They are not dealing with Mercantilist Policies. They are not dealing with underinvestment (the real kind, not the government consumption and calling it investment. Actual building of plant and machinery.)

    Right now, since no ‘fix’ has been done, The Fed shoving buckets of money at the economy is just making an asset bubble in stocks and eventually in land (again though that is somewhat their goal – to get housing “values” back up … which is really inflating the currency enough that the underwater price becomes larger than the mortgage while buggering everyone on fixed income or salary). It is not increasing real investment nor fixing mercantilist ‘hollowing out’. It is driving up prices for “real stuff” while wages stay low. Stagflation.

    We’re racking up debt at nose bleed rates. WHEN interest rates rise, debt service will rise and consume ever more of the national budget. The end of that game is Greece. Now MMT types will say we can just print the money to pay the bond holders.. but that leads to more inflation and more Q right when you want less…. Oops. So you end up with a choice between real repudiation – don’t pay the debt, repudiation via high inflation – pay in worthless paper, or paying ever higher interest rates to ‘roll over the debt’ as bond buyers realize that inflation is built in. (See Argentina for how that one worked out… they had their own currency too). In any case, you can’t borrow any more ‘real value’ as people catch on, and you don’t have enough money to support the bloated government programs. That’s “going broke”.

    Those $16T have maturities from “now” to 30 years. So on average 15 years. That means over $1 Trillion of debt MUST roll over each year. As soon as it doesn’t, rates skyrocket. If The Fed buys up the paper, more money is created. Q goes up, inflation goes up. Oops again.

    MMT tries to remove from Keynes the discipline part and then layers on some hyperinflation fodder and Debtor Prison behaviours. It’s just wrong and doesn’t work. We have decades of history showing that. (Well, centuries, really, as sovereign debt and fiat money problems have been around for about 1000 years.)

    BTW, this housing crisis was only different in details from many in history.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/business-panic-of-33ad-things-never-change/

    And the fix is the same. BUT when things pick up again, the “Lender of Last Resort” has to withdraw the cash to prevent inflation.

    Oh, one other tidbit on MMT:

    MMT claims that word “borrowing” is misnomer when it comes to a sovereign government’s fiscal operations, because what the government is doing is accepting back its own IOUs, and nobody can borrow back their own debt instruments. Sovereign government goes into debt by issuing its own liabilities that are financial wealth to the private sector. “Private debt is debt, but government debt is financial wealth to the private sector.”

    So that $Trillion owed to China and the other $Trillion owed to Japan are not “borrowed”? Riiiight… Tell that to them. Then “government debt is financial wealth”? Great, then we are all wealthy as can be. Heck, print up $10000 Trillion and we can all be super wealthy…

    What that ignores is that pretty pieces of paper are not wealth. (Nor are computer bits). Real wealth is land, buildings, productive capacity, minerals, livestock, timber, corn in the field or elevator, machinery, and vehicles. The ability to do things and make things. That real, physical, tangible wealth IS wealth. It sits on one side of the equation. Piles of paper on the other. Make more piles of paper, there is less real wealth per piece of paper. Government debt is NOT “financial wealth”, it is dilution of the currency and confiscation of value of currency via inflation. It is, in short, “watering the stock” of the currency.

    Now it does take time for that to show up. For folks to notice and prices to rise. But rise they do… Even if the Government chooses to ignore the price of food, gas, housing. Oddly, too, if what you BUY is going up in price, but YOU re not being paid more, or even being paid less, then there is “no inflation” if those two sets of money flows offset each other. How many of you would feel there was no inflation is goods are costing more but your paycheck is smaller?

    So please, don’t go pedaling that MMT crap as though it had truth in it. It takes some things with truth and value and then corrupts them to justify money printing and value destruction, national debt to excess and impoverishing the people to the benefit of major institutions.

  101. Ron House says @ Anthony
    no you won’t (i.e. see him in hell)– you won’t be going there! ;-)
    Henry@Ron
    That is Anthony’s choice.
    We all have exactly the same choice – when at Easter we arrive at the empty tomb – see here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/

    the only pre-condition of going to heaven is to make a confession of your faith.
    Most convincing for me to make that confession was the complete change in behavior patterns of Jesus’ followers after His resurrection….there have been a few commenters here who completely missed that. Perhaps they should try to read the gospels and the acts of the apostles.before deciding that they don’t want to go to heaven to spend time with “those” people.
    BTW
    I am a socialist, is that wrong? Or is that not so “OK” on this blog?

  102. The term ‘liberal’ has become corrupted over the years.

    It has now come to mean well-meaning people with goofy ideas about how the real world should work. There is a cast iron cure for this: surviving a good mugging, or in very severe cases two good muggings.

    I know of several instances of this and would suggest it would help Paul Krugman enormously – obviously, no one would want him to be be hurt in the experience, but it is amazing how such an unpleasant experience can cure the mind of goofy thoughts.

  103. E.M.Smith says: “… drunken sailor…”

    Having been a sailor and on one or more occasions been unsober I would like to point out I was spending my own money and I knew when to stop. :-)

  104. @ Henry P.
    “I am a socialist, is that wrong? Or is that not so “OK” on this blog?”
    Anthony has what, half a million readers each day? No matter what view you express, there will be people who write to oppose it. And about half a million more who say nothing either way. But as far as the blog is concerned, although economics is not a matter WUWT regularly comments upon, Anthony and his team will not censor you. Subject, of course, to you not hijacking a post or being repeatedly off-topic.
    As with Global Warming, so also with economics, when we have strong informed views, it becomes hard to avoid the temptation to evangalise. When we interject our enthusiasms inappropriately, then we are being crackpots.
    On a blog that is not devoted to economic theory, the views of others will tend to be distributed in accordance with their distribution in the wider community. Yours is a minority view, and as such will be rejected by the majority.
    I jam not a Socialist. The problems the Red Brigades set out to solve have long been solved. The test of reality has shown Socialism to be wrong in both geography and time specifically with North and South Korea, East and West Germany, and pre and post ‘Capitalist way’ China.
    These prove in practice that Socialism does less for the people than Capitalism. We have the economics of the Austrian theorists that explain why this is so.
    My personal judgment is your socialism is “OK” on the blog, but Socialist theory is wrong.

  105. I am an atheist and a classical liberal. To lump all liberals under the same banner as socialists, communists and Marxists is as categorically wrong as to lump conservatives with the Religious Right, Nazism, creationists, extreme nationalism and Holocaust Deniers.

    Paul Krugman does not speak for liberals – he speaks only for himself.

    In my view of environmentalism and the global warming panic in general, it is striking to me how much of the belief systems of climate alarm cannot be rationally distinguished from creationism and apocalyptic beliefs regarding the End of the World (which are as old as humanity, as far as I can tell). Thus James Hansen, who is a Christian, has a perfect symmetry between his repeated warnings about saving the planet from the effects of fossil fuel uses and the coming Judgment Day as described in the Bible with lurid descriptions of plagues, earthquakes and global upheaval.

    But Christians I know are hardly in the same camp as James Hansen. Ross McKitrick is a self-described believer in God and yet finds the claims made about the climate and the environment to be as exaggerated and ill-thought out as I.

    What is most striking about the debates surrounding climate science has been the complete lack of self-criticism or even self-analysis as one preposterous meme of impending doom as followed another.

    Many people who don’t believe in any God or Gods find the claims of the climate apocalyptics to be preposterous and false and a form of disguised fundamentalist religious beliefs that they have already rejected, even though some of those who make such claims are self-described atheists.

    I think there are rational people who believe in God and equally rational people who do not. Nor do people’s belief systems stay static over time. I once thought that the claims of global warming to be credible – now I do not. I think James Lovelock has moved considerably from positions he held even five years ago

    My observation is that most people cling to their innermost beliefs about the world and select those facts or observations that reinforce those beliefs and discount or ignore those that do not. Capitalists and socialists do this. Liberals, socialists, Marxists and conservatives do this. Atheists and Theists do this. Fox News and CNN and the BBC do this. No-one is wholly orthodox or completely rational in all of their thinking.

    Carl Sagan was a wonderful teacher of the history of science and the progress of scientific discovery. He was also a believer in the baleful effects of nuclear winter and promoted global warming panic. Isaac Newton made such incredible discoveries about physics and maths that everybody today learns his science and mathematical in schools and colleges to this day. But he was also a proponent of preposterous nonsense about the Bible and Ancient Egypt. Johannes Kepler was a superb observational astronomer who nevertheless cast horoscopes and produced streams of nonsense about supposed “celestial spheres” in the Heavens using the seven platonic solids.

    I have lots in common in terms of outlook with Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Willis Eschenbach and Roy Spencer. But I have criticisms of certain beliefs or viewpoints with all of them. Sometimes I have criticized them on the Internet for saying certain things.

    But you know what? I think we’d have great creative arguments about lots of things and still respect each other in the morning.

    I think its called maturity.

  106. HenryP says:
    March 16, 2013 at 3:22 am
    “BTW
    I am a socialist, is that wrong?”

    Well then google Kolyma, maybe that cures you.

  107. I’m not seeing evidence that Krugman has a conscience, based on the article. He does seem to be liberal.* I’d suggest he change his column to “Baseless Fact-Free Ravings of a Liberal” but that’s just me. YMMV.

    @HenryP
    I’m perfectly OK with you being a socialist. As for being wrong… ;o)
    (I’m a Tribalist. In a matter of years, Gangs will be the dominant form of government.)

    *Did that put me in the running for the “Understatement of the Year” award?

  108. Henry@Leo Morgan

    The examples you cite are communism, not socialism. There is a big difference> With communism there is no incentive to work hard.
    Examples of countries where the per capita income are the highest in the world in the order as far as I can remember are: Luxembourg, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Germany. These are the countries where the income distribution between the highest earners and the lowest earners is the lowest, Most lately Brazil has been doing quite well in bringing the ginnie factor down by introducing good socialist policies. Hence they are growing tremendously. My own country of residence, South Africa, is not doing well in this area. Even the tax policy here of the ANC has made richer people richer..Hence we are suffering from a lot of strikes and social unrest.The ANC is not a socialist party, as far as I am concerned, and neither is the opposition. Perhaps we should start a new party here with a clear social program…..

    Henry @ John A

    I am a Christian, I am a socialist, I don’t believe in AGW or CAGW. I believe CO2 and H2O are like my father and mother and anyone wanting less of either must be daft.

    Note, as in my reply to Leo Morgan, I am those things because I have verified all the facts available. As to my Christian faith, I have related in my previous post here what convinced me. Like you I also believed in AGW but I was not so sure anymore, when, one day I arrived at WUWT. I therefore decided to conduct my own statistical test,

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    The facts are clear. We are cooling, globally, and it is going to get worse.

  109. Russ R. says:
    March 15, 2013 at 10:08 pm
    I think he forgot a hyphen in the title:
    The Con-Science of a Liberal.

    True that.

  110. DirkH – Thanks for the link to the Rio+2 document, “World In Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability,” from the German Advisory Council on Global Change. It is heart-warming to read such global overlord strategizing as this, at page 20: -well worth readnig to see what these totalitarians actually believe–

    “Equitable new global system (high ambition level):In accordance with the global social contract for sustainability, the ultimate goal of a revised global governance architecture must be the creation of a new, equitable global system. Its institutions must put the international community in a position that leaves them capable of appreciating the complex interdependencies of the global society within the scope determined by the limits imposed by our planet, as soon as within the first half of the 21st century, to allow for timely and adequate response. This demanding process is comparable with the embedding of market dynamics in constitutional states, democracies and welfare states during the last great transformation into an industrialised society, which led to the stabilisation and acceptance of this new form of society in the first place.

    “Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons. Sustainable strategies and concepts must be developed for this in order to embed sustainable global development in transnational democratic structures, to formulate answers to the 21st century questions regarding global equity and distribution of resources, and, not least, to be able to claim world-wide legitimacy.

    “This means concrete academic search processes, for example by global governance theoreticians, international law experts, cosmopolitans, transnationalists and philosophers of justice to formulate legitimate and realisable norms, rules and procedures which, all together, could form the basis of an ideal global social contract. This would be something of a quantum leap for civilisation, on par for example with the transition of the feudal systems to constitutional states and democracy. Comparably to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, it should in principle also be possible to reach a universal consensus regarding human civilisation‘s ability to survive within the natural boundaries imposed by planet Earth. This necessarily presupposes an extensive ‘Global Enlightenment’, which must be aimed towards promoting cooperative behaviour and accelerating the formation of relevant global social standards and debate. The WBGU strongly advises the use of the coming Rio+20 Conference as a historic chance for such an enlightenment process.”

  111. Krugman sees ‘d*niers’ everywhere. His latest victim is Olli Rehn, the soft-spoken Finnish EU economics Commissioner. While I have no love of the EU, Krugman’s comments grate even more.

    Krugman commented last week that, after “browsing through the collected speeches of Olli Rehn”, he was “the face of d*nialism when it comes to the effects of austerity”.

    When Rehn retorted in tweets, Krugman said “I never asserted that Mr. Rehn’s mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries” – a reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    Sadly this was bad timing. Rehn commented in an interview “We should perhaps be grateful to Mr Krugman for his generosity in promising at least not to compare my recently-deceased mother to a hamster.”

    Later Rehn said Krugman was guilty of talking in “modified truths”. This is polite Finnish for what in UK politics is known as “being economical with the truth” and in US politics as a “mis-speak”.

  112. HenryP says:
    March 16, 2013 at 6:24 am
    “There is a big difference> With communism there is no incentive to work hard.”

    Here in Germany there is no incentive to work hard either as the marginal income tax rate is 70%.
    As requested by the communist manifesto – high tax progression. That’s the main reason Germany has lower wages than Italy or Spain. We have simply given up fighting for wage increases.

    “Examples of countries where the per capita income are the highest in the world in the order as far as I can remember are: Luxembourg, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Germany.”

    Oh, you can look that up in the CIA world fact book. There are many many countries you left out, the USA is 30% higher than the Western European economies; you left out Singapore as well, probably doesn’t fit the narrative. Luxembourg is not exactly the posterchild example of a socialist nation either as it is basically a city with a bunch of banks.

  113. E.M.Smith says: @ 3:00 am
    The notion that you can print more currency and not dilute the value of it is simply broken on the face of it. There is an identity.
    ******************
    E.M.Smith for President!!

    Why we have so many stupid intellectuals that can not, or will not, understand the basic concepts of valuations behind a currency, is a mystery to me.
    I find it hard to believe that they can not understand it, so I am left to think, that they will not. Even faced with the miserable record of failure, of deficit fiscal policy, coupled with inflationary monetary policy. They continue to “believe”, that this time, will be different.
    If you choose to run, you have my support.

  114. thelastdemocrat says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:57 am
    “DirkH – Thanks for the link to the Rio+2 document, “World In Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability,” from the German Advisory Council on Global Change. It is heart-warming to read such global overlord strategizing as this, at page 20: -well worth readnig to see what these totalitarians actually believe–”

    Please remove beverages from the proximity of sensitive electronic equipment before proceeding to read – Thanks.

    When I mentioned comic book supervillains, I completely forgot that Schellnhuber is…
    …a comic book hero now.

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/06/climate-science-turns-comic-john-schellnhuber-now-depicted-as-planet-saving-comic-hero-in-germany/

  115. This happened a few years ago, the warmists made this in to a moral debate, because they knew they had no evidence of global warming, so they did a bait and switch, and I think that is immoral.

  116. again@DirkH

    the point I was trying to make is that the countries with the lowest gini factor (more light and yellow colour on the chart) currently also have the highest per capita income…..

  117. HenryP says:
    March 16, 2013 at 9:26 am
    “@DirkH
    You are OK in Germany. USA is red,, a lot worse, probably 30% lower, not higher.”

    You were talking about GDP/capita, now you bring up an equality map.
    So I take it that for you wealth is not important but it is important to you that everybody else gets exactly the same as you.

    I notice that the wikipedia has no data for Cuba. That is interesting. I guess when you exclude the nomenklatura, they have perfect equality; when you include the nomenklatura, perfect inequality.

    A bizarre result, but typical for socialism.

  118. Krugman using an elitist snobbery joust to demean and ridicule…

    Sounds to me like he knows that he and his ilk have lost the battle and they are lashing about like a fish out of water… Gasping for their last breath..

  119. To those that think that Socialism is a solution to economic inequality, prepare to cover your eyes, and quickly skip to the next post.
    The only way that Socialism can ever improve econmic inequality, is to make everyone equally POOR, except of course, the government, and it cronies. But they (the government) will eventally be reduced to poverty also, by the corrupt incentives, of a centrally planned economy.
    When a person earns money in the free-market, he does so, by providing a good or a service, supperior to the competing goods and services, according to his customer. This “earned money” is now his property, and can be spent, saved, invested, or donated, according to his priorities. By earning money, in the free market, he has raised the level of GNP, and society benefits by his wealth production.
    If he chooses to donate money to the less-fortunate, the donator, recieves the benefits of magnanamy. The recipient(s) know the gift was given freely, and that future gifts are not certain. They know that, if they too, can be productive, that they will recieve independence, and the ability to help those, less able to compete.
    When the government intrudes on this process, the govenment is now “taking by force” property from the earners, and presenting it to the “entitled”. Both sides are now less incentivised, to either earn more money, or to become less dependent. The end of this scenerio can be soon, or it can be forced into the future (for the children to enjoy), but it can not be prevented.
    This system can not prevail, and ALWAYS ends in a collapse, where everyone is poor, and angry, and the vacuum is filled with “angry, nasty” leaders.
    It is human nature. There has never been an example of socialism, that has had long-term economic growth. And there never will be. It violates the basic incentives for work.

  120. HenryP says:
    March 16, 2013 at 9:37 am
    “again@DirkH
    the point I was trying to make is that the countries with the lowest gini factor (more light and yellow colour on the chart) currently also have the highest per capita income…..”

    Sorry I missed that comment.
    Well, but is it true? I mentioned USA and Singapore as countries with a higher degree of inequality yet a very high GDP/capita. Cuba – when we ignore the nomenklatura – has a very low Gini index and is a starving hellhole. North Korea the same. So is there really such a correlation.

    http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2006/01/04/gdp-per-capital-vs-gini-index

    So… I think this refutes your statement. The countries with the lowest Gini index might be very rich and they might be very poor. Obviously the Gini index cannot be a causative factor.

  121. Krugman talks of “Everyday Externalities”. People should not make the mistake of thinking that all externalities are negative as some are positive. Aside from other things Co2 is also a bi-product of industrial activity and this bi-product is helping to green the planet. So there.

  122. On “Liberal” as a word:

    There are two, substantially opposite meanings to “Liberal”. The “Classical Liberal” is more in line with American Libertarian. The “American Liberal” is an artifact of American Socialists / Progressives realizing they had a ‘bad name’ after W.W.II when the National State Socialists (i.e. Germany) and the International Socialists ( i.e. Russia) kind of had a tiff and killed millions… Also the “3rd Way Socialists” (i.e. Italy – the Fascist movement was the start of “3rd Way” Socialism) So after all that, the American Socialists and Progressives started calling themselves “Liberals”.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/i-am-a-liberal/

    But they are just another flavor of “Progressive” who are indistinguishable from the “3rd Way Socialists” who preceded them. (Mussolini was widely praised in Progressive Era USA and his “3rd Way” was held up as a great step forward. He was given cameo appearances in a Hollywood Movie and praised by government Progressive leadership. It happened. Accept it.)

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/some-quotes-on-socialism-and-fascism/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/nationalist-socialists/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/liberal-fascism/

    @HernyP:

    Unfortunately, the difference between Communism and the other Socialisms is not nearly as great as you would like to think. Do be advised that they all like to shout about how different they are from each other and how far removed from all the bad things ‘the other kind’ has done / caused.

    Even to the extent that Stalin branded National Socialism as “right wing” (there being nothing to the left of Stalin…) and had it “stick”. (“right wing” and “left wing” are essentially useless terms for sort socialisms vs capitalism vs other isms).

    THE essential difference between Communism and National State Socialism is in the name. The focus on one Nation State vs the global collective “International” Socialism. (That’s why the Communist anthem was the “International”) Fascism came up with the innovation that they didn’t need to confiscate / nationalize companies as long as they ringed them with a wall of regulation and administrators that assured they did as told. So really, the most clear way to see it is just to look at the point where “Central Planning” operates.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/socialism-utopia-workers-paradise/

    Communism: Center of the Party Committee (with the goal of creating global socialism)
    National State Socialism: Center of the Nation State Government
    Fascism (“3rd Way Socialism): Center of the Industrial Planning Commission

    They are all “Central Planning” forms of government. They are all Socialisms.

    BTW, the USSR defined itself as socialist…
    As in “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”

    Now you can try to distance yourself from the precursor Socialisms and their failures. (It has a long tradition of name changing and distancing…) but I’d rather just look at what they themselves said ( all claimed to be good Socialists) and who they held as their guiding lights (all look to Marx and Socialist / Communist doctrines).

    The current crop of Socialists look to the same sources. But they are nearly rabid in asserting that if we just leave out the bad bits from those prior failed attempts, “this time for sure” it will be different. So no “nationalism” as the Italian Fascists and German National State Socialists gave it a bad name. Rabid assertion that racism is the problem (via that same National State Socialist emphasis on racism). Assertion that Socialism can be more local (not necessarily “International”) – as the USSR ‘had issues’.

    Even a tepid attempt to use “Market Socialism” since strait “Central Planning” has failed so often. Yet “Markets” under strong Central Regulation (which is different from “Central Planning” exactly how?…) and various commissions and panels and regulatory bodies doing the high level planning. The history of failed faux markets pushed by such methods is “not good”. (See the “carbon exchanges”…)

    So please, do realize that there is a LOT of ‘smoke blowing’ and distancing and flat out lying about history in an attempt to hide the historical failures of socialisms over time.

    The easy way to keep it clear is just to look at the Communist Manifesto ( you do have a copy, right? Mine is well used. It is essential to understanding the history of Socialism.) There’s a checklist in it. Just look at how many of those are done, that’s how close to the goal any given Socialism is placed. How Much is the economy planned and driven from the central government? How Much is a push for labor union / industrial forced “cooperation” mandated? Is there an emphasis on the “Avoidance of Bankruptcy” as a legal method? (i.e. “Nationalize” and bail out instead of bankruptcy court and bond holder precedence / liquidation). Nationalized “Public Education” (with central planning of what is allowed to be taught – with emphasis on making a ‘good citizen’ fitted to the needs of the party, the people, the nation). And several more.

    Please realize I am not trying to cast stones at your belief in Socialism as a “good thing”. Just trying to assure that the history is not airbrushed away and that the actual relationships are remembered. (So we don’t need to repeat the failures…) I have often said I think I can make the best defense of “Lange Type Socialism” (now being renamed “Market Socialism” – though why is unclear). I can also spend weeks detailing why pure free market capitalism is bad and a failure. (“Monopoly Power” is a good place to start…) There ARE major problems with Capitalism.

    But also realize that the history of the Socialisms is “not good”. The “3rd Way” or “Market Socialisms” can work spectacularly well … for a while. See China today. See the early history of Fascist Italy ( it did work well and the trains were on time). My complaint is only that the history of them is a history of “Unstable”. Central control attracts central controllers. Over time, the Evil Bastard personality type, instead of just running one company in competition with some other E. B.; instead takes over the country. Then this Tyrant begins mandating and power grabbing. (See Mayor Bloomberg for a petty example in the making). Eventually it ends in wars and a police state. Even your lauded EU countries are in the middle of that process today as power is centralized in Brussels and more “mandates” are handed down.

    So “get back to me” when you have one example of a Socialism that lasts stable and peacefully for 100 years. Most look to “blow up” in about 30 years. (Some make 50, like the USSR, some far less, like National State Socialist Germany.)

    I don’t like capitalism. But reality just is. And that reality is that having separation between a national government NOT running the economy, and a competitive cesspool of E.B.”Captains of Industry” fighting each other instead of the people (and with moderate / light regulation of the worst offenders by the government) seems to be what works best and lasts longest. Essentially “Mixed Economy Capitalism” within a democratic republic. So I’m smart enough to realize that history is a better decision maker about what works than anyone working from their pet theories or what they like. (BTW, Socialist doctrine specifically asserts that what people like and what theory says is the more important….)

    In short: It works best when the cops policing the system are not part of it. Once government is “Central Planning” you get “Crony Economics” as “Friends of Government” get the advantage and the money. Then the cycle of decay starts with more E.B. types “working the system” of government control boards and influence pedaling. Eventually that all decays into inefficient government, inefficient industry, and a consortium of E.B. taking over the system (at least until one of them becomes a new Tyrant and ‘does in’ some of the rest…) Eventually you end in collapse.

    So any Socialism (even “3rd Way” and “Market Socialism” types) has a ‘timer running”. They do well for a couple of decades, then the rot starts. Then you get the Solyndra type bailouts of “Favored Friends”, and the nationalizing of Banks and other major industries. The flood of ever more “permits” and “regulations” as the central power structure demands control and money. That, then, leads to stagnation, rise of the Petty Tyrants, and eventual collapse in decay.

    Find a way out of that process and you have a great system.

    Don’t find a way out, you are on the wheel just waiting your turn of the cycle to Tyranny and collapse.

    So watch for “Central Planning” and “Central Regulation” as the defining markers. If the system allows for “organic” growth of distributed control and decision making, it does well. If it centralizes and limits choices, it does poorly. (And if it doesn’t police the distributed decision makers for monopoly practices, it ends up in one giant private monopoly and predatory destructive business practices…)

    In short: Your desire for a more equitable world is a noble one. But look at the history of how the various systems have worked out over 50 to 100 year time scales.

    The basic problem is the E.B. problem. Some of us are just not very nice. Letting them have central control of everything is much much worse than letting them run one company fighting with others of their kind… We can’t get rid of the E.B., but we can get them limited in their scope and reach. They WILL grab power, so make that power diffuse and distributed and competitive.

    (Much of the current push to “Market Socialism” is just such an attempt. It’s doing better than most other Socialism. Still has the ‘slow creep to central Tyranny’ problem though..)

  123. Krugman asks “can anyone deny that more drivers means more traffic congestion?”. Er, well, yes actually. What he seems to have overlooked is that for all the hundreds of billions spent on ‘climate change’ (oh how I hate that phrase), including research, and the green’s abject hatred if the car preventing build of road capacity, the road/transport networks could have received the much needed investment that would have had a positive impact on the economy, compared to the economic disaster green policies, including renewables, is causing.

  124. Anthony — You’re clearly guilty of heresy for questioning the teachings of the high priests. You surely must be aware that they, and they alone, are capable of translating and understanding the ancient proxy scriptures.

  125. @Russ R:

    Thanks for your vote!
    ;-)

    But I lack the essential ingredients for being a politician. ( Sleezy schmoozing skills, lying with grace and ease, endless manipulation of others for my own gain, avoidance of truth, embracing the shared lie, exploitation of others…) I’m just not suited for the job…

    Per “why so many” bright folks don’t get it. Um, I think they do…

    One of the main assertions of Marx is the “inevitable” collapse of Capitalism and that, then, leads to The Revolution from which comes the Socialist Workers Paradise. The collapse of capitalism is a desired goal. Once that is in mind, it is easy to make the next leap.

    Why try to ‘fix it’ or even help it last a bit longer? Is it not better to accelerate the “inevitable” collapse to hasten the day when more “Social Justice” and “fairness” and all the good things of Socialism will prevail on the land? Isn’t it your moral duty to help advance the arrival of The Revolution?

    Once you realize that “collapse the system” is a goal state it makes much more sense. See Saul Alinsky.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

    Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing.

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/saulalinsky2.html

    Saul Alinsky helped to establish the confrontational political tactics that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. Obama never met Alinsky personally; the latter died when Obama was a young boy. But Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.

    In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” – a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

    It really does help to “Know your Marx” and read your Alinsky… Always read the foundational documents of your opponent. They must act inside their belief system, so you will know what they will do…

    So if you want to collapse capitalism, what better tool than to debase the currency and make contracts worthless?

    In short, it’s not a lack of understanding, it’s a goal.

  126. “The Conscience of a Liberal”

    Such hubris – even the title is dripping with self-regard. This is exactly why in my mid-twenties I gave up left-wing politics, with its blinkered, hypocritical and self-righteous mutual back-slappers. And none of them has learned a thing since then

  127. henry@dirkh & others

    the countries that I mentioned in my earlier post all have the highest per capita income and the lowest gini factor, Your reference. does not disprove that. So socialism is good and social programs work. Canada versus USA is another good example. (I will l bet that Canada’s per capita income is bigger than that the USA). Obviously I have been doing some thinking about why this is so. The reason I came up with is simple.. Here in South Africa that has a high gini factor, I can see this very clearly. The rich people already have everything they need, so if they become richer they will not consume that much more. On the other hand, if the lower classes and total “have-nots” get more money in their hands they want fridges, washing machines and other basic commodities, etc. and so the whole economy gets working and everyone profits…. it is that simple….

    Even in ancient Israel they had a social benefit: every 50 years all land would go back to the original owners and slaves were set free.
    BTW, I subsequently found out that 50 years is about 50% of a 100 years weather cycle that the ancients knew about which has at its basis the noted 88 year Gleissberg solar/weather cycle.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

  128. @Russ R.:

    Oh, and one other point… If you are printing money like crazy, from a Socialist point of view it has two major benefits.

    1) It accelerates the arrival of the collapse and the Workers Revolution.

    2) It lets you hand over large chunks of cash (value taken, by definition, from the folks who presently hold cash and debt instruments like mortgages – i.e. “the rich”) to those who you like. SEIU and the Government Unions, Friends Of GM and their union, Friends of Obama and Solyndra like bail outs of folks you like. In short “wealth redistribution”.

    Once you realize it’s a goal, it makes much more sense.

    @DirkH & HenryP:

    I see the “income equality” line is being fished again…

    The big problem is not “income” but “wealth” distribution. The Obscenely Rich don’t need much pocket money to spend, so can keep ‘income’ at a mere $Million or two a year, if desired. While sitting on $Billions of accumulated wealth and assets. So leveling “income” just suppresses the “up and coming” trying to BECOME wealthy. “Income Equality” is supporting the status quo of wealth in-equality.

    With that said…

    We need income inequality. It is a good thing. Look up “marginal propensity to invest”.

    http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=marginal+propensity+to+invest

    It is just those people who have large and rising incomes who invest in new industries, new capital stock, new businesses. Poor people consume all their income (and then some). The Very Rich are already fully invested and largely interested in protecting their entrenched interests. (There will be some ‘organic growth’ inside some of the companies they own). But the simple fact is that only folks with high and rising incomes and wealth invest large fractions of their money. Investment that moves the growth of the economy forward for all participants.

    When we are all “equally poor”, investment in new plant and equipment drops, we start a cycle of economic contraction and decay. To have more economic growth and more productivity for everyone, someone must invest, and the “marginal propensity to invest” says that is “rich people”. So the best way to make more wealth, is to have more rich people. Help the middle class to rise into the rich class. And help the poor rise into middle class. But if you try to ‘help the poor’ by hurting the rich, you get lower investment, lower job formation, and everyone gets more poor. That is only of benefit to folks who want to accelerate collapse and bring on the Workers Revolution…

    (The Communist answer to this is “Public Investment”. Have the Government, as the only “Rich Guy”, own all the assets and do the investing. That doesn’t work out so well… For other kinds of Socialism, they have other ‘patches’, that also don’t work so well. Often involving various kinds of “subsidy” or “government programs”. See “stimulus bill” for examples… and check out Solyndra… So now you know why Obama talks about “investment”. The goal is have all the population poor workers and the government own / manage the ‘investment’ and capital stock via central planning… In theory it can work. Early days of Stalin’s USSR had rapid growth. Longer term it breaks down as innovation and incentive effects cramp.)

  129. I agree with your observation about WHY today’s socialists in Washington (and Europe) WANT to “print money” and distribute income FROM their opponents to their voters – Roosevelt pioneered that intent in the 1930’s, and today’s politicians learned their lessons well.

    But why are we NOT seeing 10% and 15% inflation today, or in the past two or three years.
    I know that much inflaton can be “hidden” by accounting practices and by “changing the rules” about how prices are calculated and what is offset. Often, mild inflation is disguised by smaller cans of food, smaller drink sizes, smaller beer bottles, etc ….

    But why are we NOT getting higher inflation with today’s five years of massive spending, and 12 years of simply “high spending”?

  130. I see HenryP is rolling out the “demand pull” economic growth model…

    So if we take all the money, and spread it equally, and all of us go buy steak and dish washers, who is using money to build the dish washer factories and raise millions of cattle? That takes money. Lots of it.

    There is an essential balance between consumption and production. Economic growth works out to about 2% most of the time. Yes, an individual new industry can have a 15% growth, but some other will be in decline. So you have on average about 2% of net new growth. (Much of the rest of investment is really consumption via maintenance). So if you increase net consumption by 2%, from where will it come? Maintenance? Or investment / growth?

    The simple fact is that the more that is put into investment (and the more maintence costs can be reduced while maintaining production capacity – that is, efficiency of capital improvements) the more can be produced and consumed. Eat your seed corn instead of planting it, you do not get more corn. You have 2% extra seed corn to work with…

    The typical mode of failure of that “redistribute to improve” model is a burst of consumption, and folks feel all happy about their new “wealth” (that is really consumption). Then the machine tooling wears out and no maintenance was done, while no new investment made new machinery. Also no seed money went into creating the new tech. The iPods and iPads of the world. The economy stagnates at a point in time and then slowly decays. The USSR and Maoist China did that. The USA is flirting with it now.

    BTW, in most countries today, promoting ‘demand lead’ policies will lead to growth of production… In China, as that money floods out of the country and into the lowest cost producer; where it will be invested by their new rich with rising incomes…

    Looking at pieces of the economy in isolation is a fun hobby and leads to all kinds of interesting conclusions, but the real economy is full of many subtle and indirect flows and linkages. Theory is often somewhat decoupled from historical reality. So I’d advise against using “pleasing theories” to model your economic thought.

    An industrious people left alone with markets will start a virtuous cycle of wealth creation and investement. A greedy people using government coersion will consume all they can and then some, resulting in an outcome of poverty. Promoting more consumption as a way to get the results of investment in plant and equipment is just a failed method. (See the USA and China today. The USA is taking the “consume” path while China is taking the “industrious and invest” path. We’re enjoying the cheap goods “for a while”, then we will be their financial thral as they have the investment in capital stock. We are becoming poorer, they richer.)

  131. @E.M.Smith
    I think you are giving too much credit, for formulating a “grand strategy” of eventual success for collective policies. This seems more like, imperial hubris , that allows ivy-league theorists, to think they can improve on the efficiencies of the market, through skillful manipulation, of the participants, and the underlaying incentives.
    The very traits that you decribe for a politician “Sleezy schmoozing skills, lying with grace and ease, etc..”, are only effective if done, when the media is corrupt and the public is ignorant, or the voting public is tolerant of these traits.
    The internet is removing the stranglehold, the media has on “political message”. The wealth that has been distroyed over the past 4 years, is a festering sore, that a small majority of voters, are willing to live with, as long as they think the politicians are trying to impove the economy. The modern maximum for maintaing a secret is 3 individuals. And only if they all stand to lose equally from the exposure of that secret.

  132. Ja, I am sure we can argue on and on, but the facts show that communism is bad for everyone, capitalism is good mostly for the rich and socialism is good, mostly for everyone. It is written that the early Christians gave freely to those who had need. Now, I wonder why……..
    Sorry I am logging off now, it is getting late.
    We had some interesting discussions here, today. Thanks to you all…

  133. @RACookPE1978:

    That takes a very long answer, and I’ve already put up too many of those ;-)

    The answer is that it’s a mix of things. I’ll try to keep this minimal.

    1) Inflation is flowing to China via a currency peg.
    2) We are staying unemployed and underemployed. (So price of gas and food up, wages not, less inflation from less ‘wage inflation’).
    3) Time lags. It takes a few years to a half dozen for the inflationary expectations to build up.
    4) The Fed. Forcing interest rates way crazy low is masking the problem by making borrowed money cheap. Essentially pushing the problem toward the future. Further but eventually bigger.
    5) The “hollowing out” of our domestic economy by mercantilist policies from China means that many things are having dropping prices. Take real estate in Detroit, for example. Or wages for Computer Geeks in the face of large H1B visa quotas of folks from India. This economic down cycle is offset against rising prices of goods (and smaller sizes) that many have observed. Chicken that had sold for 88 cents a pound now goes for $1.30 locally, for example. So those real negative economic structural “issues” mask the commodity / goods inflation.

    There are some more bits, but that’s likely enough to give the idea. Things like the CPI having been redefined a few decades back to make it show inflation less well. Lower cost goods from China for many sectors having historically kept prices down on those goods so a 5% rise now from a 20% drop 6 years back isn’t “inflationary”. Never mind you are now working at a coffee shop for minimum wage instead of as a professional on salary… also held as deflationary. The “housing crisis” causing house prices that had inflated in a bubble to deflate, so inflation in things like food and fuel is offset by your house being worth less. Etc. etc.

    The ‘end point’ is when The Fed decides they need to let interest rates rise, even just a little. At that point, all sorts of folks with loans take a big hit on costs, and that “gets passed on”. Equally, the folks on ‘fixed incomes’ that presently get nearly nothing from bonds will start getting income again. Then start spending it leading to more price pressures. At some point, The Fed can’t keep expanding the balance sheet by $Trillions/ year. Then the interest rates rise and the cycle catches fire. In theory, we will eventually start going back to work. At that time, wages start to rise (catching up with the prices of food, gasoline, airline tickets, etc.) and the CPI numbers can’t keep it hidden any more. That takes a few years.

    Economics is full of very long lag time cycles. That throws a lot of folks…

    IMHO we’re likely headed for a Japan Style “zero interest rate stagnation of a decade”. They just decided to throw in the towel and debase the yen. Now imported goods in Japan are rising in price (fast). So it depends to some extent on how long The Fed can hold zero or near zero interest rates and how long China will accept ‘pretty pieces of paper’ for real products. Once they say “no, we have enough”, then prices of Chinese goods start to rise. If they break the currency peg too, you can find that $30 Dutch Oven ( I just bought) turning to $50 overnight.

    That, BTW, is already happening a little bit. Prices of goods ARE going up. Just wages are lagging at this point. Many companies have posted “increased earnings” on lower volume of sales. They hiked prices. Just most folks don’t notice real quick, or at small changes. (One kerosene stove I was looking at sells for $50 now, was $38 in an couple of year old article describing it. Had I not seen the article, I’d not have noticed).

  134. HenryP says:
    March 16, 2013 at 11:57 am
    “the countries that I mentioned in my earlier post all have the highest per capita income and the lowest gini factor, Your reference. does not disprove that.”

    Well but you have omitted all examples to the contrary; so you’re cherry picking. There have been quite a number of studies that did exactly the same thing so it is a consensical myth now. Of course, very much in the interest of statists and their media the world over, as it allows them to expand the state and buy votes in the name of lowering the Gini Index, so statist media continue to promulgate that myth.

    Two thoughts:
    If you rob me off even more of my income the Gini index will be lower. So you should do that to improve the equality metric. It’s the thing you should fight for.

    At a certain point, of course, it will make economic sense for me to stop working. I might actually already be there. Of course, as soon as I stop working, the Gini index drops. Which is a good thing, so you support my desire to stop toiling. I like that aspect of your argument.

    And another thought: You have to find ways of robbing me off my savings as well. Say, like the EU just did with the savers in Cyprus. Be warned, however, that I prepare for that event.

  135. HenryP says:
    March 16, 2013 at 11:57 am
    “So socialism is good and social programs work. Canada versus USA is another good example. (I will l bet that Canada’s per capita income is bigger than that the USA). ”

    In this case, you are right – but do you really want to make the case that Harper is a greater socialist than Trudeau? :-)

  136. HenryP says:
    March 16, 2013 at 12:55 pm
    “Ja, I am sure we can argue on and on, but the facts show that communism is bad for everyone, capitalism is good mostly for the rich and socialism is good, mostly for everyone. It is written that the early Christians gave freely to those who had need.”

    Ok, Henry is gone but I can’t resist:
    – He thinks that socialism is different from communism. There has in fact never been a communist state because communism by definition by Marx himself is a state without government; the evolution of the socialist state. I can only say, Socialists, read your own literature.

  137. E.M.Smith says:
    March 16, 2013 at 12:09 pm
    “central planning… In theory it can work. Early days of Stalin’s USSR had rapid growth. Longer term it breaks down as innovation and incentive effects cramp.)”

    The first 5 year plan of the USSR – which started after Stalin gained the power – was written by Albert Kahn, Henry Ford’s architect, and involved the construction of 630 factories by German and American companies in Soviet Russia. The Soviets paid with mineral concessions and Gold. They had Gulag prisoners mine the Gold; so this was the reason to cart off millions of political opponents, thieves and victims of party purges to the Gulag, where mortality was 30% a year. Google Kolyma, as I said to Henry.

    So that was the secret of Stalin’s rapid industrialization.

  138. Russ R. says:
    March 16, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    “I think you are giving too much credit, for formulating a “grand strategy”
    [...]
    The modern maximum for maintaing a secret is 3 individuals. And only if they all stand to lose equally from the exposure of that secret.”

    What gives you the idea that it is a secret?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabians

  139. re: DirkH
    The Fabians are not a secret society, and proudly proclaim their support for Socialism. I support their right to be wrong, and think they should move to Cuba, and enjoy the fruits of a subsidized life.
    If the current administration thinks that way, it is a closely guarded secret. Most voters that support the current administration, would be surprised to hear ,that the goal of their fiscal policy, was the distruction of the economy. That is why I think it is improbable, and they are just falling for the same “ivory-tower” theories that have distroyed one economy after another. They all think they are doing what they can, to make life fair. And if a few “rich-folks” get skewered in the process, so much the better.

  140. John A says (March 16, 2013 at 4:51 am): “Paul Krugman does not speak for liberals – he speaks only for himself.”

    Paul Krugman speaks for enough people to earn a pretty good living.

  141. E.M.Smith says (March 16, 2013 at 12:57 pm): [snip]

    Thanks for sharing all the lectures. Informative, as always. I visit your blog occasionally and always come away feeling I’ve learned something.

  142. RACookPE1978 says (March 16, 2013 at 12:16 pm)
    But why are we NOT seeing 10% and 15% inflation today, or in the past two or three years.
    I know that much inflaton can be “hidden” by accounting practices and by “changing the rules” about how prices are calculated and what is offset.
    ——-
    Try the shops, or better still, see http://www.shadowstats.com/

    As for the arguments over political economy. has no-one heard the old joke: “Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; communism is the reverse”?

  143. @EMSmith
    Thanks for vindicating my statement.
    @policycritic-
    You didn’t really make any statement of logic. I wonder if perhaps you also believe that conservation of energy is bologna, since you also seem to believe that paper is magically valuable simply because a “soveriegn” entity printed it. If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas for you.
    Also, accusing me of repeating something Sean Hannity has advocated is somehow an insult shows more of your failure to engage the grey matter between your ears, of course people today don’t understand what a logical fallacy is. The only thing that should matter is the merit of the argument. I stand by my statement about Mr. Krugman and Mr Smith has already provided broad and demonstrative statements about why. I suspect you may end up changing your mind at some point in the future.

  144. @E.M.Smith says:
    March 16, 2013 at 10:57 am

    Kudos for several excellent posts which I fear, but hope will not, may be prophetic for the future of the U.S.

  145. “Early days of Stalin’s USSR had rapid growth.” Hmm. The start point had a lot to do with the rapidity, did it not? Agrarian >> Industrial always shows rapid growth at the outset. Doesn’t say much for the Merits of the system. Look at China since 19xx.

  146. Wish I had the conscience of a liberal; I could use 50 Gs right now for doing nothing more than writing a propoganda piece for a crooked company.

  147. @All who like my comments:

    Thanks for the appreciation. It’s nice to know all that typing didn’t just get skipped over (even if it was a bit too long ;-)

    @Ed, Mr. Jones:

    Yes, the agriculture / industrial transition was a big benefit. Yet one can also look at the early days of Fascist Italy (also a flavor of Socialism – in particular, the first “3rd Way Progressive” version – he coined the term even…) First couple of decades were great economic progress.

    Basically, when things are ‘pretty messed up’ and all it takes is a few ‘no brainer’ decisions (like make more steel, or get the trains working) central planning does well. It is once you need more detailed and subtle (localized or flexible) decisions, the “Emergent System” of capitalist markets just runs rings around central planning. This is also why during times of war, having a central war production ministry “calling the shots” works well. It’s pretty clear what is needed (“make 1000 tanks!”) and which one (Orders are “That one!”). The rest is elaboration. Change that to “Figure out what ‘fashion’ will be next summer and start manufacture now” or “transform telephones with more features and portability than you can imagine”… well, central planing kind of just flops. Badly.

    So in times of war, we adopt a semi-socialist command economy model for many things. Then folks think that will work just as well at other times. And it won’t. Oh Well…

    But regardless of when it happened, or what tech was happening; the fact is that early stage Socialisms do OK. It’s just an historical fact. Late stage they are horrid. (Look at Greece today… BTW, get ready for a ‘run on the banks’ as Cypress just confiscated 6% to 9% of depositors money. No joke. So in most any of the PIIGS, I’d be on ‘bank run’ watch.)

    @Dirk H:

    Sadly, the morality of a method is not an economic concern… It was all “Centrally planned” even if some was via contracts and the method involved the Gulag. ( I never said it was moral, only that it was effective… and even that, only for a little while.) But there is a modestly long list of early stage Command Economies doing well. I’d rather not go all prolix here and start listing them all. Besides, most of them have since gone belly up ;-)

    I’ve been working on a theory as to why. I think it has to do with information density and processing speed of the people involved. Government rewards larger overhead and slower processing, along with punishing change. Profit motive rewards minimal overhead, faster processing, and really rewards disruptive change to your competitors. At the start, the central government system is starting from a zero basis on overhead and “legacy”, so works. As it stagnates, the need to “prune the legacy” and “chop out the time wasting mind numbing overhead” grows day by day… until it is just maddening… Then the collapse comes.

    But yes, one of the major problems with a command economy is that since there is often only ONE Evil Bastard in charge and little to constrain them, they are often quite brutal. Even when it is a committee of a dozen “deputies”, they are usually more interested in ‘favor of friends’ than ‘morality for strangers’.

    @HenryP:

    Capitalism is Good for Mostly Everyone. as long as there are anti trust laws. Look at the incredible wealth of the average nobody in the USA. Cars. Appliances. So much food that “Obesity” is our major food problem. Even our poor are incredibly wealth by global standards.

    What is true is that it is incredibly over the top Good for the very super rich. So we have great “income disparity”, from Super Rich down to just ‘pretty well off’ on a global basis.

    The problem I’ve repeatedly pointed out, that you seem to be ignoring, is that if you have wealthy from 100 down to 20 in the USA (with 20 to 0 in places like 3rd world hell holes) then making us all ‘equal’ at 25 (or even less divergent with 50 – 22 ) results in less investment over time and more poverty for ALL So in a few years you are at 15 for all and falling… or 30 to 15 and falling. You simply can not ignore “Marginal Propensity To Invest” and expect things to work right.

    There is only a 2% to 3% “cushion” of economic growth. Quash just that much, and you end up in malaise, recession, even depressions, stagflation (if money printing) etc. etc.

    It really is easy to screw up 2% worth of the economy and break it. (See the EU today and the USA as well… we’ve gone to the pathetic growth group too…) People look at a $10 Trillion economy and think there is $10 Trillion to play with. There isn’t. Most of that is obligatory just to keep the motor running. You have $200 Billion to $300 Billion of growth that if you mess it up, puts you into a recession. So, for example, tax an added $400 Billion, your economic growth is gone (and then some). Somebody has to stop buying shirts and beans and use that money to pay the tax. That means the investment to make those goods dries up and that part of the economy shrinks. Have more than 2 or 3% of that, you are in a recession (even if the other 2% to 3% of ‘new stuff’ did grow, as the net is zero to negative).

    So layer on 2% of added costs for Central Planned Regulations? Just killed growth. Start the stagnation and decay cycle…

    It really is imperative to grasp that. We MUST have investment on going just to stay in the same place. We only grow a small amount per year. Waste that, you shrink.

  148. The arrogance of these people who seem to think we worms (human beings) are so powerful that we can control the planet’s climate. If you look up into the sky you see an enormous fire ball which is, something like, 1.4 MILLION times bigger than our planet which must have some effect !! You cannot see us from space, you cannot even see us from an aeroplane – we are so small, yes a lot but still tiny. Keep telling the truth !

  149. As government control over the economy grows, an increasing proportion of economic choices are made according to political priorities. Political priorities may or may not coincide with economic reality.

    As government funding (control) over science grows, an increasing proportion of scientific activity is allocated according to political priorities. See Marcott et al 2013:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/16/mcintyre-finds-the-marcott-trick-how-long-before-science-has-to-retract-marcott-et-al/

  150. redjefff says:
    March 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    I and about 10 friends have an agreement… the first guy down there gets in line for ACDC tickets. Anyone else want in?

    I’m sorry, but in Hell all you get are sucky, cover bands. :)

  151. Henry@almost everyone (there are no socialists here?)

    I live in a country with a high gini coefficient….you can see it from this graph

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

    I invite you to come here and visit us and to give me some advice…..
    We have (real) people that are going through my rubbish bin that I put out every week. On average at least 5 people, every week, going by the alarms set off by my dogs.
    You cannot go anywhere without running into a beggar asking you for money. We have street vendors at crossings that keep insisting on knocking at your windows telling you they are hungry.
    Pray, do tell me, what am I to do. I can help one person, or even a few, but I cannot handle so many…..
    We have slums that go on for miles and then suddenly you get an area that is secured by high walls and fences with houses that cost millions to build. How do you respond to that?
    How do these rich people here in South Africa live with themselves?

    As I said before, this country needs a good socialist party and clearly the ANC is not it. The opposition has been known to be the old “whiteys” who are people who all think, erhhhh, more or less like you ….
    I mean all capitalists on this blog.

    Parodoxically, as I said before, if you look at the graph, the countries with the lowest gini factor are also the ones with the highest per capita GDP, mostly.

    I am just saying. If people take care of each other, God will take [care of] us.

  152. Sorry, that last sentence should have been:
    I am just saying. If people take care of each other, God will take care of us.
    Cheers.
    Henry

Comments are closed.