« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Boycott JournOlist: Target #3. Paul Krugman, New York Times.

JournOlister Paul Krugman is to Congressman Paul Ryan as Ellsworth Toohey was to Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Krugman is a left-leaning public intellectual who represents a pseudo-intellectual status quo. Krugman is typical of the duplicitous facist tweaks who reveled in the camaraderie of journOlist. Paul Ryan is a visionary who represents an ideological alternative to the Krugman’s pseudo-sapient mush.

Thus, the time has come, if you don’t do so already, to boycott the organization for which Paul Krugman is such the condign mascot. JournOlist boycott target #3 is The New York Times. Do not link to it, advertise in it. If possible, please avoid patronizing those who prominently advertise therein.

Ayn Rand created Ellsworth Toohey to represent the extent to which iniquitous intellectualism destroys the human spirit. Toohey, like Krugman, uses his intellectual abilities to preach that man should be servile before the hyper-empowered state. Rand has Toohey describe his methodology below.

Aiming at a society that shall be “an average drawn upon zeroes,” he knows exactly why he corrupts Peter Keating, and explains his methods to the ruined young man in a passage that is a pyrotechnical display of the fascist mind at its best and its worst; the use of the ideal of altruism to destroy personal integrity, the use of humor and tolerance to destroy all standards, the use of sacrifice to enslave.

Congressman Ryan has been rendered aghast at the feckless, Keynesian enstupidation that currently drives economic policy-making in the current Paris Commune Congress that is spending America into penury. As a result of this profound heartburn, Congressman Ryan has offered his economic alternative to the Keynesian spend-a-thon. His alternative budget plan, “A Roadmap For America’s Future,” details a series of significant cuts in the rate of increase and reforms to the current welfare safety net, and visionary tax reform.

For the entire 2008 campaign, we kept hearing that Republicans had no economic ideas. The poor Democrats had to clean up this mess they inherited. They didn’t mind, but they didn’t want to hear from the people that had made this mess. Krugman certainly does not want to be informed of any alternatives to Keynesianism. His mind not only slammed shut, it has been hermetically sealed.

Thus Krugman indulges in quite a catty fit of messenger-sniping from his august perch at The Senile, Gray Lady. He wrote a column which castigated Congressman Ryan via what Former NY Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent described as “the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.”

Krugman castigates Ryan with schoolyard taunts. He calls Ryan a dope, a charlatan and a man who coats his numbers in the very flim-flam sauce that seemed to give Dr. Krugman’s defender, Mr. Okrent such a splitting hangover. He goes predictable left and accuses Ryan of depriving the aged of health care. This would, of course, be totally unlike the reclassification of breast cancer treatments that the FDA recently undertook in response to mandate from ObamaCare.

Ryan did not flinch in the face of criticism from the disingenuous and over-credentialed “public intellectual.” He took to the pages of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and stripped the paint off of the illustrious Dr. Krugman’s dishonest, Potemkin-like arguments.

What critics such as Krugman fail to understand is that our looming debt crisis is driven by the explosive growth of government spending – not from a lack of tax revenue. Krugman also recycles the disingenuous claim that the “Roadmap” – the only proposal certified to make our entitlement programs solvent – would “end Medicare as we know it.”

Ironically, doing nothing, as Democrats would prefer, is certain to end entitlement programs as we know them, and in the process, beneficiaries would face painful cuts to these programs. Conversely, the “Roadmap” would pre-empt these cuts in a way that prevents unnecessary disruptions for current beneficiaries.

(HT: Paul Ryan)

For now, Paul Krugman has the bigger megaphone. As poet Charles Buckowski wrote, The horns of reason are muted./ As the laughter of fools blockades the air. But you and I, Ladies and Gentlemen, You and I can fight this blockade. We can refuse to do business with those who make it their business to pour advertising revenue into organizations who support authors who joined JournOlist.

Boycott update: I’ve request assistance in the denial of revenue to three targets thus far.

Wachovia Bank – Supporter of The Columbia School of Journalism and The Nefarious Dr. Todd Gitlin.

Continental Airlines. – Advertiser at Wired Magazine. Home of Resident JournOlist Howler Monkey, Spencer Ackerman

Today’s selection. The Gnu York Times…

As always, X-Posted At:…..The Minority Report

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Brian Hibbert

    and nominated for best description of progressives this month.

  • texasgalt

    Krugman has proven himself to be a fool. But we already knew that.

  • eburke

    One of my pass-times is to take mail solicitations from the NYT, send them back uncompleted in the pre-postage paid envelopes after adding as much paper as possible to make them overweight.

    Just my little way of aiding in their financial demise.

  • JadedByPolitics

    Communist Political Class POS. I would like if the RIGHT would stop linking to him even to mock him. It is literally OUR including him in conversations from site to site that he even has a showing of those who read him. He is the STUPIDEST person I have ever read in both books and the internet….I believe he would fit in quite well with the intelligensia in Cuba!

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    and based on what I have read, the tax cuts would offset the spending cuts and we would still be left with a significant deficit. Ryan’s SS reforms are really interesting, but the one that scares me is the guarantee of invested money. If we had another market collapse like we did in 2008/9, the government could potentially be on the hook for a ton of money. Finally, I still do not see how the health tax credit would work. Family coverage costs a whole lot more than the credit, and that is for a relatively crappy plan with big deductibles and huge out of pocket costs. Finally, getting rid of capital gains (unless he is only referencing long term gains here, it was unclear) is a bad idea. As a matter of opinion, what we need is a higher (potentially confiscatory) rate on very short term gains (like those held less than 10 days (or heck even 5) in order to curtail the gambling that has been going in markets that are supposed to operate for investments.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      The Joint Committee on Taxaton scores tax legislation, not the CBO. It would be fascinating if you could link someone a wee tad more trustworthy than Krugman for info on how Ryan’s plan cuts tax revenues.

      The tax policy center of the Brookings Institute goes on to say further…

      CBO estimates that his plan would result in a debt to gross domestic product ratio (GDP) of 69 percent in 2020, rising to 99 percent in 2040, and then decreasing to 77 percent in 2060. This is in contrast to CBO?s estimates for its alternative fiscal scenario (which assumes a continuation of current policy) where the debt-to-GDP ratio is 87 percent in 2020, and then rises sharply to 223 percent in 2040 and 433 (!) percent in 2060.

      Do you really think his plan could actually do worse than the current trajectory towards 433% debt to GDP by 2060. Do you think that that is even realistically possible. Ryan is reforming off of the absolutely worst possible baseline performance an American government and Congress could have. That is what Krugman is criticizing him for. Krugman is actually upset that he thinks we should reduce spending enough to avoid that.

      • aesthete

        It’s amazing how hackish Krugman can be. (Speaking of Krugman, did you read the American Thinker article on the drubbing Krugman’s taken in his comments section? It’s quite apropos, given the subject.)

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        weren’t scored (precisely because CBO doesn’t score cuts), so looking at his projections debt levels is meaningless until we get an idea of how revenues are going to come in from his tax plan. And I am still concerned about the health care part that doesn’t even seem close to being able to provide the median American family with decent health care options.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          Since 1980 the federal tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP.
          TPC did analyze Ryan?s tax-specific proposals and found they would fall short of this revenue goal. For example, Ryan?s proposal would lead to federal tax revenue of approximately 16 percent of GDP, which amounts to a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years compared to the alternative fiscal scenario. (HT: Brookings Institute).

          GDP = $14.5T
          0.18 X 14.5T = $2.61T/Yr of anticipated revenue.
          Ryan’s shortfall = $0.4T over 10 years. =2.7% of GDP.

          Projected current scenario, 69%Debt to GDP.
          Ryan’s shortfall, 1-{(1-0.026)^10} = 23%. In otherwords, the E-Vil tax cuts leave us 1/3 the shortfall that our current Keynesian enstupidation.

        • aesthete

          There are other institutions, both within and outside of the federal government, which have scored the tax cuts. 1) As mentioned previously, tax revenues have stayed fairly constant over the past 30 years, 2) Ryan worked with the folks at the Treasury Department to iron out details, and 3) his “Roadmap” has been scored and analyzed by other think tanks, including the center-left Brookings Institute.

          As to his health care plan, define “decent”, and explain how President Obama’s plan is better than Ryan’s. I can think of at least two things going for Ryan’s: it liberalizes the market to a greater extent, and isn’t as costly as the Affordable Care Act.

    • aesthete

      That would be the province of the Joint Tax Committee. Because the Joint Tax Committee doesn’t produce revenue estimates beyond the 10-year window, Paul Ryan worked with directly with the good folks at the Treasury Department to work on tax reform that keeps revenue consistent with the historical average. Tax revenues have been remarkably consistent these last 100 years, and haven’t strayed far from 18%. This under various tax schemes and regulations, including the halcyon years of the 90% tax rates on “the rich”. It is spending which has fluctuated wildly, and which we should get a grip on.

      The higher confiscatory rate is a terrible idea, btw.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        the point of the markets is to provide a means for investment, not gambling. And since we are structuring retirement to be focuses on the markets, then we should ensure that investments are held in higher esteem than “trades”. The only people a very short term tax would harm are the day traders and high frequency guys, the very people who undermine the integrity of the whole idea of investing in the stock market.

        • aesthete

          regulation would be a much better way to handle such issues. Various other industrialized countries that don’t have the confiscatory rates you’ve described have fared well, and others which have such rates do not necessarily correspond to the ones doing well during the current economic troubles. Day traders and high-freq guys are also quite a bit better for the economy and the financial market than you give them credit for.

        • mikerazar

          Capitalism requires free markets. Transaction taxes cripple free markets.
          Who the hell are you to decide whose transactions are good or bad for society? Maybe the transaction czar?

          The point of markets is to provide price discovery and liquidity to facilitate honest trading, not to discriminate among particiapants.

      • aesthete

        “past 100 years”. Clearly, I meant past 30 years.

  • aesthete

    and how often it’s on things where he should know better. Just recently, he wrote an article on Iceland’s “post-crisis miracle” to back up another of his “debt is awesome” screeds. To avoid getting bogged down in the details, the “miracle” wasn’t even close to “miraculous”, as the Council for Foreign Relations shows. Unemployment benefits are another issue where the mind boggles: in a “why are the Republicans so mean?!” column, he writes that unemployment benefits are “textbook economics”, when his own textbook holds that this is not true. (It holds somewhat more true as a temporary measure during a recession, but I digress.) On trade, he consistently covers for “fair trade” advocates, despite the fact that the work that made him famous makes it clear that even under some of the worst conditions, free trade is a net good. Pretty much any issue for Krugman depends on who’s in the White House: when Bush was in, he was responsible for soaring deficits. When Obama got in, suddenly not increasing deficits was the childish thing to do. Krugman hasn’t been worth the time since the 00s started.

    • mikerazar
      • Scope

        and, don’t forget his bank account. These people, like the O literally, would sell their grandmas for a front page headline.