Monday, October 29, 2012

Is Paul Krugman Expecting Economic Collapse or Just Hurricanes?

The man has his own power generator. I thought only those expecting economic collapse had them.  He writes:

OK, power line down across our driveway; the tree that took it down also took down our Fios connection to the outside world. I’m blogging using my iPad as a hot spot, but linkage may be iffy — we’re sort of in the Bermuda triangle of cell access, and at the moment I have only one bar.
But we do have a generator! So no worries, just nuisance.
Does this mean he also has a stockpile of freeze dried food and perhaps, even, gold coins?


  1. He's has connections with HAARP. They told him that they're sending a hurricane over to the NE area to break more windows. Thus, why he knows that there won't be an economic collapse.

  2. Why does he save anything? Doesn't he know savings causes unemployment? I bet he even has more than one clean pair of underwear that he's currently not employing. We'll never get out of this depression until The Fed prints enough money for Krugman to run out of clean underwear.

  3. He has connections with HAARP. They told him that they're sending a hurricane over to the North East area to break more windows. Thus, why he knows the economic collapse will be averted.

  4. 7:28pm. Why would more newly printed Fed-money cause Krugman to buy more underwear?

    First of all, Krugman does not receive the money first. It is the Primary Banks and connected firms that receives the money first. And they will not spend it on underwear.

    But for arguments sake, let's say the Fed sent every American a check instead of only sending it to their cronies. Why would they buy more underwear than before? The supply is the same as before. The demand is the same as before. Only the price has changed.

    We have to move on from Econ 101.

  5. Krugman would be happier if Sandy brings more destruction because he thinks more money will be printed for reconstruction and the US economy will be saved by the storm.

  6. Robert,

    Those with brains have electric power generators or know how to deal with an outage in other ways.

    I think the key problem isn't that Paul Krugman is a bad economist, on the contrary, he is a rather good one.

    But he is also a redistributionist and he tends to promote positions and economic policies that result in redistribution.

    Basic lesson one: a free market is a neutral device to distribute, but can distribute in quite unequal fashions.

    Alas, those who tends to amass fortune based on healthy economic actions (as a private person or as a business) have extremely often the unfortunate habit to start to buy influence and bend rules in their favour. Often with the goal to continue to harvest the fruits of their savings/capital without much real tought about actual capital allocation and in what they invest.

    That unfortunate habit is a weakness of nearly any society (in totalitarian societies as "influence buyer" you get up in the ranks in different organisations).