In the image above, Paul Krugman works on the left side. Krugman calls himself a “liberal” in order to round up members of the herd who have leftist tendencies. Krugman makes sure they are processed and consumed by the rich, along with the rest of the herd.
He gets away with this because no one knows what he’s talking about. Krugman himself doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He just writes meaningless gibberish and calls himself a “liberal.”
Once in a while, however, he slips up and reveals that he is in fact a right-wing asshole, and always has been.
For example, Gerald Friedman (an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst) says that Bernie Sanders’ platform would, if enacted, increase economic growth by 5.3%. I didn’t read Friedman’s paper, but Sander’s programs would certainly increase growth. If no one had to pay for health insurance or medical care, or pay on student loan debts his entire life, then the economy would indeed get a boost.
Recently, four “economists” wrote an open letter denying this fact. These four are former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Obama and Clinton. The open letter did not give any reasons or arguments. It just said that Friedman is wrong because…well…Friedman just is.
Krugman, being a right-wing elitist, naturally agreed with them. (He hates Sanders and loves Hillary Clinton.) Krugman claims that the letter devastated both Friedman and Sanders because…well…it just did, okay? Krugman, like the letter, offers no reasons, arguments, facts or evidence for this.
Krugman calls Friedman a cult member of Sanders, when in reality Friedman favors Hillary. Sanders did not commission or endorse Friedman’s study.
This is all about Krugman’s hatred of Sanders and universal health care. In fact, the more popular Sanders becomes with the public, the more hated Sanders becomes by Krugman.
The good news is that most of the 331 reader responses to Krugman’s crap condemn Krugman. Everyone seems to at long last be waking up to what Krugman is.
Clearly most Americans want universal health care. Only the rich oppose it, along with their puppet politicians (like Hilary) and pundits (like Krugman).
In fact, the comments against Krugman were so negative that Krugman attacked his own readers later on the same day.
Krugman also wrote…
Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now.
Really? Friedman is a supporter of Hillary, not Sanders. Why would Sanders need to disassociate himself from a Hillary supporter?
The last line of Krugman’s crap goes…
“In Sanders’s case, I don’t think it’s ideology as much as being not ready for prime time — and also of not being willing to face up to the reality that the kind of drastic changes he’s proposing, no matter how desirable, would produce a lot of losers as well as winners. And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.”
What a self-righteous little insect.
Bill Black says:
The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.” Krugman doesn’t explain what “the problem” is, but he sure makes it sound awful. Logically, “the problem” has to be progressives supporting Bernie.
Finally, keep in mind that Krugman denies the facts of Monetary Sovereignty. Here are own words…
I do get the premise that modern governments able to issue fiat money can’t go bankrupt, never mind whether investors are willing to buy their bonds. And it sounds right if you look at it from a certain angle. But it isn’t.
Why? Because, according to Krugman, the U.S. government depends on loans, and on tax revenue. Hence, for Krugman, the government cannot issue more money than it takes in.
What an asshole. And yet, people like him because he calls himself a “liberal.”