Rebutting the Rebutter’s Rebuttals.

I wrote an article recently published on Ron Paul’s Voices of Liberty (http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/paul-krugman-smooth-character/) rebutting a Krugman article in his NY Times blog.  I was surprised by some of the passionate responses I received from folks defending Krugman and his ‘Keynesian’ ideals.   Not one to pass up a chance to gain an understanding of others’ perspectives and arguments I engaged some of these folks in the discussion.  What became clear to me is that Keynesian economics has been seemingly hijacked by the broad socialist movement.  The discussions were not so much defending Krugman as defending Keynesian economics.  However, these folks are arguing Keynes from a socialist perspective.  And herein lies the problem with guys like Krugman.

Krugman is not a dumb man nor is he ignorant of factual propositions of the various schools of economics.  But what he (and others like him) has managed to do is to misconstrue the basis of Keynesian economics.  Let me be very clear, to the dismay of many liberal minds, Keynes rejected socialism, period.  However, when discussing the economy and markets with self proclaimed socialists it is clear they truly are under the belief by way of popular media that Keynesian economics has a socialist foundation.  They believe that Keynes suggested the government should control the economy.  This is where Krugman becomes a bought and paid for muppet.  Given he is not an idiot nor is he ignorant of the fact that Keynes fully rejected socialism yet continues to promote a message that attempts to grey the lines between Keynes and socialism makes him in my opinion bought and paid for.

Allow me to clarify Keynes’ position on government’s role as it pertains to fiscal stimulus.  Keynes concluded that in certain instances fiscal policy stimulus is more effective than monetary policy because it goes directly to spending whereas monetary policy indirectly leads to spending.  This is a powerful and logical argument.  However, Keynes in no way suggested that the economy should be controlled and/or led by the government or that government fiscal stimulus should be perpetual in nature.  Krugman is very well aware of these Keynesian concepts.  But Krugman also understands that it is easy enough to blur the facts in order to bring the young liberals and social activists into his Keynesian camp.  So when I say Krugman is bought and paid for I mean exactly that.

Krugman is intentionally misconstruing Keynesian ideals to attract a broader audience and that is disingenuous and against his better knowledge.  So he is being paid to be disingenuous or another way to say it is that he is bought and paid for.  Sorry to all those socialists who really want to argue that the socialist ideals are backed by an accepted school of thought but that simply is not in anyway shape or form factual.  You should let Keynes rest in peace and not distort the man’s life long work for a selfish and damaging agenda.   And you can disagree with the conclusion that Krugman is bought and paid for but you cannot deny the premises that Krugman is being paid to distorts Keynesian economics.  I see no other reason for him to lie other than to appeal to those who want an argument for a socialist society and thus a big government mandate to provide for its citizens when they choose not to provide for themselves.  If one of the socialists out there can show that what I’ve proposed here is not correct I urge you to comment and we can carry this discussion further.  I always appreciate your thoughts.  Again comments can be sent to firstrebuttal@gmail.com.