Friday, January 14, 2011

Is Paul Krugman for Immorality?

Paul Krugman may be more right in a recent post than he realizes. In a post titled, Monetary Morality, he writes:
You see, if you’re the kind of person who views being taxed to pay for social insurance programs as tyranny, you’re also going to be the kind of person who sees the printing of fiat money by a government-sponsored central bank as confiscation. You may try to produce evidence about the terrible things that happen under fiat currencies; you may insist that hyperinflation is just around the corner; but ultimately the facts don’t matter, it’s the immorality of activist monetary policy that you hate.

Now, Krugman is trying to be slick here an attempt to label those opposed to the Fed as just being religious about the entire thing. It's one of his favorite distortions. But, he is correct when he says that taxation and Fed money printing are viewed by anti-Fed people as immoral. They are, indeed, both immoral. But this doesn't mean there isn't further theoretical and historical evidence that central banks destroy currencies. There's plenty (see End The Fed).

We know Krugman objects to Austrian monetary theory because he doesn't understand it. But is he also immoral, now that it is clear he understands that taxation and Fed money printing are both forms of coercion?

He's correct when he says:
At a fundamental level, Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes are on one side; Ron Paul is on the other.
Not only does Ron Paul understand the theoretical monetary case against the Fed, but he also understands the moral case. Yes, he does stand apart from Keynes and Friedman.

Krugman closes snidely with this comment:
And it’s not a debate in which evidence really matters.
This is true in the sense that coercion is always evil, even when conducted by the Fed. But, again,it doesn't mean that there isn't a theoretical case against the Fed also. The real interesting question, though, that Krugman raises in his post, is very important: Therefore, is Krugman immoral for supporting the Fed, now that he makes perfectly clear he understands the moral implications of doing so?


  1. Krugman is just a violent bratty parasite who thinks he is entitled to other people's lives and incomes...No different than Hitler of Mao.

  2. I always love it when those on the left couch their argument on the premise that the other side is not dealing with or accepting facts. My question is this, if that is true, then why not simply present the facts and avoid the argument? Of course, "the facts" that are supposedly being ignored are never presented and instead what follows is usually some sort of fallacious argument. Often times I find that what those on the left refer to as a fact, is in reality their preferred opinion or theory from elite academia.

  3. Is he immoral?

    Yes. If you know something is wrong and support it anyway, you're morally culpable.

  4. Is he immoral? His entire life is in support of state violence. Krugman is a parasitic little runt similar to Napoleon.