When you read the words of an economist, you might as well be reading Tarot. You should always bear in mind that Economics is a social science and is highly theoretical, far from hard science. So when Paul Krugman declares, for example, that it would require a much larger stimulus package than was passed in 2009 to pull the US out of its economic rut, you need to realize that Krugman is, by definition, spewing out of his ass what amounts to fumes of guess. Its the perfect example of a person who would see you in a big hole and tell you to keep digging. Eventually, you'll dig yourself out of that hole, it will just take some time. In reality, you're far more likely to find yourself at the bottom of the ocean.
Krugman's latest gem is a pastiche of the wonders of magical thinking. He makes three points, one of which is a gross contradiction of his previous claims. Another is typical Krugman style economic snake oil disguised as strong medicine. He ends this exercise in fantasy with such a fanciful speculation you have to wonder if he's kidding.
His three points are as follows-
*In order to climb out of our massive debt, eliminate deficit spending, and thereby get our finances in order, we are going to have to institute a VAT (Value Added Tax). This is the one that falls in the category of wishful thinking, in ignoring the obvious fact that this would more than likely amount to just another drag on economic recovery.
*In order for the current health care law to remain viable over the long term, there will have to be some form of rationed care, which he admitted in an almost throw-away, off-hand fashion would amount to "death panels"-a contradiction of his earlier statements of rebuttal to Sarah Palin when she warned this was a near certain consequence of Obamacare. He later claimed to be utilizing sarcasm by use of the term death panels. Since that is nevertheless what it would amount to regardless of what name you apply, the joke is on Krugman. Actually, its on all of us.
But the biggest gem of all-
*One day, the President of the United States will be Clinton-CHELSEA Clinton, who will go on to institute the policies Krugman recommends.
Sure, Paul, that's going to happen. By the way, while you're at it, what color panties does she wear?
Can we now all agree to stop taking this clown seriously? Sure, he *might* have been "joking", but a joke only has value if it has some basis in reality. Seeing as how Chelsea Clinton has no experience of elective office, or even in running for such, his remark isn't humor or satire, its nonsense based on some fantasy only he is privy to, but which he might have inadvertently let slip. It's the kind of thing that makes you wish Bill O'Reilly had knocked the little shit silly when he had the chance.
As for the other statements related above, there's nothing particularly original about the concept of a VAT, and he seems to be way behind the curve when it comes to recognizing the potentially negative impact of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) on the quality of health care in America.
So really, my question is, is there a chance that Economics is in essence nothing more than snake oil in general, and that we might be best served by relying far less on economic theory? After all, it seems that the slightest disruptions render the most impressive economic models obsolete. What's worse, they don't necessarily have to be that profound, or that unexpected.
It might sound simple-minded, but maybe we would be better served by turning to people who know how to balance a checkbook.
You know, people like Sarah Palin.
