Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Krugman Says It Would Have Been Better for the Economy if the Earthquake had Done More Damage

Paul Krugman takes the broken window fallacy to a entire new level. Following today's earthquake Krugman writes:
People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.
This is not the first time Krugman has come out in favor of destruction. Here's more, along with an explanation of the Broken Window Fallacy, which Krugman apparently fails to understand, given the many times he has called for destruction.

UPDATE: Krugman denies he has Google+ account. See here. But be sure to watch the above video. Calling for more damage from an earthquake is certainly in line with his thinking. Afterall, as the video demonstrates, he would have preferred more damage during 9-11!!


  1. I guess Krugman won't be happy until there are mountains of dead bodies and large scale destruction of civilization. How this man can be looked at with any seriousness and allowed to continue going about in polite society is beyond me. As much as I try and as much as other will claim to the contrary, I can only come to the conclusion that this man is simply evil.

    This man doesn't care about people. He seems to care about some arbitrary statistics. He doesn't care that if the destruction had been greater that lives might have been lost or people made homeless. None of this seems to even enter his thought processes. Its all about how best to boost this number or that number. The human aspect of what he wants be damned.

  2. There's always hope: http://i.imgur.com/Fiilf.jpg

  3. @ Anon at 10:45 pm

    From his statements and demeanor, I don't think Paul personally cares about the levels of destruction. He just retells a fallacy as if it were truth. In fact, he seems truly emotionally detached from the imaginary consequences he pontificates about. I am no psychiatrist, but doesn't this make him a sociopath on some level?

    Take it a big step further and he might wonder what "economic good" could be created by industrial repurposing of body parts from any fatalities. Some environmentally friendly lampshades, perhaps?

  4. Why don't we just nuke ourselves.

  5. Someone needs to go to Krugman's home and just completely trash the place. Economic growth!

  6. Crazy statists love death and destruction, in earthquakes, hurricanes, flash mob riots, wars and military invasions, bombs and bullets. They love death and destruction with a drooling passion. They are sickos, psychopaths, and, just plain nuts.

  7. Sick. Delusional. I hope people really think about that statement.


    Why should these guys be upset about 9/11 then? Instead of fighting terrorists, they should be welcoming them with open arms, because it gives us a chance to boost GDP.

  8. hahahaahah. are america's top economists and politicians of such a calibre? no wonder your country's in a total mess right now

  9. only better for economy if damage is not done to government property. otherwise cost of fixing will be 4x the needed cost and just another waste of taxpayer money and increase in debt of country.

  10. So would someone explain to me again how the devastating earthquake in Haiti helped to boost their economy?

  11. Krugman claims he had no Google + account and it is a fraud


  12. Krugman (and others like him)really do believe that government spending = economic growth, but the scariest part of this sort of thinking is that it is still being taught in universities across the country.
    This man has totally discredited himself many times in the past and appears willing and able to continue to do so.

  13. Even if this is a fraud, he has claimed in the past in the paper of choice for Soviet massacre coverups that the earthquakes in japan were a good thing because it would "boost the economy."

    This is literally what I learned on my first day of macroeconomics! I was lucky enough to have an austrian, but everyone immediately understood how stupid the theory was once it was explained. Apparently Krugman bases his whole economic system around it. Maybe even arsonists and looters can use that they were just trying to help out the economy as a criminal defense!

  14. Let's bomb Detroit and rebuild it...Oh Wait...Detroit was already destroyed by political terrorist's tax-n-law bombs.

  15. Don't be so hasty. Imagine the benefit if a stronger earthquake had hit Washington D.C.

  16. PK just wants to stay at the reditual limelights of academia -even so absurd his postkeynesian theories could be- and of international presss, deserving him enough publicity to travel around and keep attracting people to his guru-statements...

    Would please any first-class university award him an Honoris Causa for Anti-Humanism??

    Conrado A. Surber, engineer & economist

  17. The 2009 version of the Broken Window fallacy: "We have to spread the wealth around."

  18. Yes, having sound money would be crazy, but praying for earthquakes makes perfect sense. How is it this guy gets on TV again?

  19. Come on folks, You are not thinking. Try to follow this: More destruction and suffering>civil unrest>law enforcement overwhelmed>martial law>UN treaty for small arms control (that Hillary has signed already) becomes law>goodby 2nd amendment. Then only bad guys have guns... Operation Fast and Furious failed to get them where they wanted, so of course he is wishing for a lot more destruction. Pretty clear afterall, isn't it? So shut up and hand over your guns... or not.

  20. Krugman didn't say this. It was a hoax. You were all had.


    So quick to jump on someone for what they said, you didn't even bother to check whether he actually said it. Who's the hack journalist now, you clown?

  21. This is a hoax. You are all a bunch of suckers who hate "liberals" so much you'll attack a guy for saying something he didn't say.

    This is a new low for the Economic Policy Journal. You've become the amplifier for a bad hoax. Do your fact-checking, you hacks!!

  22. @ JT

    How much fake stuff do you think the MSM has published with all their fact-checkers and teams of reporters and editors?

    Bob single-handedly puts out some of the most cutting-edge posts in the blogosphere.

    So he didn't catch on to one inconsequential fake quote. Big deal. Someone liberal probably did it to get revenge for that goofy picture.

    It's not much of a fake, anyway, if it sounds exactly like Krugman's normal pronouncements.

    Bob gives Krugman credit whenever he gets something right, which is a hundred times more civil than any one in the MSM who wouldn't cite a right-wing blogger even if they ripped his liver out and used it themselves.

    Why don't you go polish your bust of Keynes or Lenin or whatever.

  23. @ JT and Anon at 4:38 PM

    That Krugman denies it now can mean several things. However, the comment (hoax or not) is so close in meaning to what the the good professor has said about WWII and the Japanese earthquake, that the point stands.

  24. @Lila 6:12pm,

    Well said.

  25. @ JT - the irony is, this is exactly what Krugman would have said, but was beaten to the punch.

    As quoted in today's 5-Minute Forecast, Krugman has said:

    After the Fukushima quake: “Yes, this does mean that the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary, if not for Japan then at least for the world as a whole. If this sounds crazy, well, liquidity-trap economics is like that — remember, World War II ended the Great Depression.”

    After Sept. 11: “Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday’s horror. These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.”

    Or heck, last week: “If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this economic slump would be over in 18 months.”


  26. You people are ridiculous. Everyone knows this is a hoax by now, but obviously Krugman is not saying war or disaster is good, he understands the broken window fallacy.

    His point about WWII is that deficit spending on something truly worthless (manufacturing bombs and bullets which would literally be blown up) was able to revive employment and growth, and that income ultimately helped eliminate the private debt burden that was causing the downturn to persist so long. This allowed us to recover thereafter. Obviously it would be preferable if the money was spent on something more useful, and ideally the things we will have to do in the future anyways, while interest rates are extremely low and labor so abundantly available.

    Its frustrating to hear people twist someone's points so they can then argue against them.

  27. I wasn't had above because I pointed out that even if it wasn't real, he has made similar comments in the past. Why do you think this imposter worked? Because everyone who has followed krugman knows he actually believes this nonsense. It wasn't any different at all than when he said the earthquakes in japan were a good thing for the economy.

  28. Ah, yes, good for "the economy", bad for the individual. As with all good statists, Krugman thinks my fortunes or misfortunes are the possessions of the god of state, which it can direct at its divine pleasure.

  29. You morons, Krugman is not rooting for a disaster. What he has said, and clarified is that a disaster CAN be expansionary. Like WW II.

    That is a fact.

    He also pointed out that Katrina, for example was not.

    He is not rooting for a disaster, no matter how you morons spin it.

    Not anymore than a newscaster warning that cholera and typhoid can spread in areas like Haiti following a natural disaster.

  30. More damage would increase govt. debt, also mean more debt.
    at the point of time the focus should be reducing national debt and make it health for future growth to come.

  31. So why doesn't Paul Krugman burn his house down.

  32. "So why doesn't Paul Krugman burn his house down."

    Ohhhh, good idea. As long as he doesn't have insurance, and has to pay "out of pocket", then it would "stimulate the economy" since money he has saved would have to be spent rebuilding!

    Damn, I fear that he might take that idea to the extreme and run with it, and burn down the whole neighborhood. That would create even more employment!

    The people defending Krugman (who admittedly didn't write this exact post, but believes the idea behind it sound- didn't you read his "alien attack" piece?) are just showing their own economic ignorance.