Paul Krugman proves four things: (1) being a columnist for the New York Times, (2) being a professor at Princeton, (3) winning a Nobel Prize in economics, and (4) having a beard are no guarantees of one's intelligence. Supposedly by these four facts, Krugman lends some intellectual weight to any Obama policy. Hence, he comes in at #8.
First, the New York Times is hardly a showcase of balanced journalism, a fact confirmed by some former editorial board members. Princeton may have given us Albert Einstein, but they also gave us Woodrow Wilson and Cornel West as well as alumni Ralph Nader and Michelle Obama. The Nobel Prize in economics is about as prestigious as the Nobel Peace Prize whose recipients include Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barack Obama. As for the beard, enough said.
What makes him so irksome is his absolute belief that Keynesian economics works to the exclusion of any other economic theory. To Krugman, the only reason the Obama $800 million stimulus was not successful was that it was not big enough. He argued that a stimulus on the order of $1.5 trillion would have done the trick. He has no reservations about the government intruding into every aspect of an American's life because collectively we are just a bunch of ignorant boobs and only bearded members of academia know what is best for us. To him and countless "progressives" before him, the country is best served by technocrats who devise wonderful models on their computers before turning over the reigns to bureaucrats in Washington to implement these models. Thus, Krugman becomes an unapologetic booster for Obamacare, cap-and-trade legislation, and increased government spending.
It would be one thing if he simply stuck to his field of economics, even though he has been caught in several inaccuracies. When presented with this refuting data, he attempts to confuse by resorting to arcane statistics that matter only to bearded Princeton professors of economics. Thankfully, his egg-headed analysis largely falls on deaf ears and sounds like gibberish (it is) to the poor sod that lost their health insurance, saw their premiums go up or saw their electric bill jump $200, or whose grandchildren are now saddled with the debt thus accumulated. In the Keynesian world, high government spending is fine because things will always get better and the debt is "not as bad as it seems." It may work fine on Krugman's computer models of economic behavior, but not in the real world.
In fact, one would hope that Krugman actually gets sucked into a computer and becomes a real-life modern day Max Headroom. In addition, if you have never seen Krugman on television, you should. He is actually a worse speaker than Barack Obama without a Teleprompter. In one interview, he may hold the record for the greatest use of the words "ah..." and "um..." What he should do is just cut to the chase and say what would be the most intelligent thing to come out of his mouth: "Duh!"
It must be great to have money to waste and my #7 spew has plenty of money to waste. Michael Bloomberg is the former Republican turned independent turned whatever mayor of New York City. This is a case of a true moron in action. It is one thing to use your money to win the Mayor's office several times and quite another to use it to advance a liberal agenda cloaked as "moderation" or "independence." Thank God the people of America are smarter than Bloomberg thinks and they are largely ignoring him. Memo to Bloomberg: because you may have been a Republican does not lend more credence to your liberalism.
First, there was the war on large-size soft drinks in the city where every fast food chain and small grocer would have become a criminal for selling a 2-liter or 20-ounce soda. One can imagine it now: soda runners waiting off the shores of Manhattan at night waiting to unload their illegal booty. There would be 20-ounce soda speakeasys popping up all over New York. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, namely a judge, and the idea went up in smoke in a designated smoking area 25 feet from the nearest entrance although the new Sandinista loving mayor may resurrect the idea.
Then there is his continuing national campaign for gun control. This usually lands him on the same show as Piers Morgan which increases the collective IQ of CNN about half a point and their ratings zero points. However, Bloomberg is not convincing anyone of the need for knee-jerk gun control legislation. Just ask the recalled or resigning legislators in Colorado. Instead of using his billions to attack law-abiding gun owners, perhaps a better idea would be to purchase all the illegal guns. He can start in Chicago and Washington, DC.
But wait! He has a new cause du jour heading into the 2014 midterm elections- climate change. One believes that since his gun gun control efforts went the way of the large soda ban and the do-do bird, he needs something new to latch onto. He will likely find out that there are more important things on the minds of Americans. Being a financial wizard, even he should know that real life economics trumps the theoretical world of climate change all the time. When people realize their utility bills will rise, that they will be paying more at the gas pump, and that good paying energy sector jobs are being lost, climate change will drop even further down that list of priorities.
However, mark my words today: He will find a new cause and it will be to join the wacky anti-fracking nutcases in New York. He has already consulted such scientific luminaries as Alec Baldwin and Yoko Ono on the subject. After that, he will probably move onto the labeling or banning of genetically modified food. And finally, he will end up in a commune in upstate New York where he will finally be one with nature in a tie-dyed shirt or celebrating his freedom by discarding his clothes and romping around the woods in the nude. There are only two words for this: "yuck" and "ewwwwww."