Has Buffy the Bozo Been Reading My Blog? Buffett Predicts Inflation—Bernake Does Not.

If you watch carefully and listen to people natter about themselves you can frequently construct a caricature of some interesting outer shell this person might  possess and, in the case of Warren Buffett, this apparition materializes to be a piece of moldy cheese with torturous caverns that contain forbidden cashes of truth. The object has an interesting glittering surface patina on the exterior with a lot of hidden rot on the inside. Buffett is known as a slick and far-seeing investor who made billions with his investments. He is actually an inside influence peddler who made a vast fortune with privileged information and intimidation of those with lesser finance muscle  although his public advice, egocentric posturing and grand self aggrandizing performances  and ostensive  “wise counsel” defiantly omit basic facts about finance and economics. He now confesses that massive government spending of the O’Bozo variety will sink us in inflation. We already knew that. Where was his wise counsel before all this?

We should live in a world where, like physics, some reasonable laws are known to govern many of our interactions and economics is clearly one of them. The elementary tenets of capitalism are well known since ancient times and the salient fact that massive spending by governments lead to inflation is obvious. Such warnings are common[1] such as outlined in the book Money Mischief by Milton Friedman published some 20 years ago. But, there are economic ‘experts’ and investment ‘oracles’ like Buffett  who criticize much about our economy [mostly for political reasons]  and Republicans in particular yet seem to get sweetheart deals with preferred stocks in companies like Goldman Sachs , Dow Chemical,  Rohm & Haas and wallow unobserved in other deals that the public is not privileged to participate in. [2] Warren relishes his perch on Olympus as the Sage of Omaha and boasted that his tax rate was only 19% in federal taxes for 2006.[3] While posing as an investment guru he taught [4] this.  He and many other Democrats supported the massive Obama spending follies that will surely sink our economy with silence about the cliff we are approaching. His politics is more important than our economy although he wants to make money from the current chaos.

Buffett own words on inflation:

“The arithmetic makes it plain that inflation is a far more devastating tax than anything that has been enacted by our legislatures. The inflation tax has a fantastic ability to simply consume capital. It makes no difference to a widow with her savings in a 5 percent passbook account whether she pays 100 percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation, or pays no income taxes during years of 5 percent inflation.”

He hates gold like Keynes, but current gold spot prices tell us that an ounce of gold sold for $19 in 1805, about the same price in 1905 and after FDR costs $900 per ounce. So, we get an O’Bozo Tax and an Inflation Tax combined in one neat political bundle of ‘change.‘

Facts from yesterday:

“After a testy exchange with Sen. Judd Gregg, who suggested that President Obama’s plans to hike federal spending would only increase the nation’s staggering national debt, Buffett relented by stating that, in the end, the U.S. government simply will do what every other government has done in such circumstances. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

“A country that continuously expands its debt as a percentage of GDP and raises much of the money abroad to finance that, at some point, it’s going to inflate its way out of the burden of that debt,” Buffett said.

“Experience proves that, he points out.”

“Every country that has denominated its debt in its own currency and has found itself with uncomfortable amounts of debt relative to the rest of the world, in the end they inflate,” Buffett explains.

“That becomes a tax on everybody that has fixed dollar investments.”[5]--Buffett Sees Massive Inflation to Handle Staggering Debt. Monday, May 4, 2009 2:34 PM By: Dan Weil

A translation: This means your annuities and pensions will become worthless. Your long term CDs and bonds will crumble away. High taxation in an inflationary era will mean a transfer of wealth to the government, the least adept entity to handle any social or financial problem in my view. Has anybody noticed the 30-year Treasury bond soared to 4% from 3%. It is going much higher.

The Real Buffy the Bozo:

Here we have a sage that omits predictable terminal economic and financial events while reaping applause from his subjects and big profits from troubled corporations. He peddles his trust like a North Beach hooker. He can see the pit ahead and yet drives us into the depths with his positive blather about Obama and his taxes. His omission of such basic economic fundamentals in finance while offering himself as an expert and opening his Oracle for the unwashed masses is deliberate and criminal. He is some kind of self-styled philanthrocapitalist—what ever that means. Oh, let’s listen to Warren Buffett—he is so successful and wonderful and egalitarian. He didn’t mention any inflation. We can trust him.

His lust for money is illustrated in this quote:

 “I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty.”[6]

This reads better as:

I’ll tell you why I like politics. It costs a penny to make a tax bill that swells into a dollar, then a million, then a billion, then a few trillion. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty from the low-class voters who get paid for their votes. Just keep the welfare payments high and the jail terms light. It’s addictive.--rycK

I hate to be one of the persons to say: “I told you so![7]” but this was predictable. I have several blogs in this point in the references below.

There is no way to recover from this massive debt but to print more money, probably default on some bonds here and there as O’Bozo wants secured bondholders to do to save the UAW at Chrysler and other instances. Our currency might collapse.

We will test the luster of gold again and very soon as our currency becomes worthless. The government will rush to limit ownership of gold if they can.

A quarter hour ago one of the case stooges, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress this about inflation:

“However, he added that even after the recovery begins, "the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while."

“That will leave slack in the economy, keeping inflation low, which in turn suggests that the central bank will keep interest rates low for some time”[8]-- Bernanke says U.S. recovery ahead, housing near bottom.” Tue May 5, 2009 11:32am EDT

If Bernanke knows, and he must, that massive spending is inflationary then how does he know the inflation and interest rates will both be low?? These policy vectors generally run in opposite financial directions. He is either lying or has some ‘secret ‘ plan to claw back the Fed money from the banks at  propitious moment or, more  likely, he is just stooge parroting the O’Bozo political line about spending and that is not a problem.

What is slack? Is this a mental disorder or a physical ailment such as slack jawedness? Did Buffett give us some ‘slack’ when he held back on the impending massive inflationary pressures by his silence? I will cut Bernanke some slack and suggest is just a lying stooge thus encompassing both ends of the argument. This slack appears to be some kind of Neo-Marxist cramdown. We are going to pay big time for all this. Those who wanted ‘change’ are going to get a bundle.

Where do we get these fools?

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Explains EcoNazism in the Warmest Terms. Tax Tax Tax

Abstract: Krugman of the NYT uses emotions and phony essays to convince us that the current EcoNazi cap and trade taxes would be small and affordable. He ignores the very basis of this effort [phony science with no data to prove their point] and avoids discussion of opposing estimates by substituting some fairy tale that must have been hatched in some Greenwich Village dope den. He thinks we can save a planet that is in no danger with American taxes and a radical alternation of our energy systems with minimal cost and great benefits. He defines “junk economics” as the contrary views of the opposition while Al Gore and his new Lysenko Movement offer the real stale junk. His credentials as an economist are absent here. He talks about costs and numbers and then provides nothing. He works the Three-card Monte scam for us in hopes that some will believe. There is no peanut under the shells—just a lust for power and a penchant for punishing economic success.

Preamble:

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1]--has a narrow set of political goals for their paper [as long as it lasts as they are close to bankruptcy] and this slender list consists of: [1] apologizing for Communism, [2] propping up losers like Al Gore [the new Lysenko.[2]  As 21,000 of us, all scientists refute this crap.[3][4]] and his phony EcoNazism[5] or [3] celebrating AIDS and [4] hatching new lies so as to engorge government with honest taxpayer’s money.  Today, we revisit the tautological ensemble of emotional jibes and wishful thoughts mixed with vengeance and the lust for power embedded in the topic of carbon dioxide, the New Terror. Items [2] and [4] are synchronically resolved to his satisfaction and the real result of this blather is a quest for higher taxes for no return.

Liberal intellectuals: These chosen people are self-styled and self-worshiped “intellectuals”—as they only conjure up novel ways to grunt and grab your money. There are no instances where they would reduce government power or cut taxes. But, today, their famous non-economist resident and tinsel-decorated igNoble Leechette[6][7][8][9][10][11], one Paul Krugman, departs from his numerology and today instructs us on long-term bliss of the carbon cap and trade follies, the biggest scheme for a world-wide tax since the Roman Empire.  Krugman is only defiant on one issue in economics and that is the notion of Tax Zombies. [12] He is always in favor of higher taxes. Pick a topic and Krugman will advise that we tax it.

Politics is, of course, the process of decision making in groups[13] and political advocates, stooges and bribees are always interested in enhancing their power so we never view an objective analysis of any topic where money and power are involved. So, there are two parts to the asset-stripping and wealth disintegration of a left-leaning liberal:

[1] An emotional issue whereby tax hikes is the only solution.

[2] A functional ‘plan’ whereby those taxes will be funneled to construct a power base.

Today, we get to watch these two creatures rise up and spew economic venom upon the masses.

Like a famous Irish writer I start with this analysis by putting the conclusion up front [and wind it around to the opening statement] as these sums up his argument:

“So can we afford to save the planet? Yes, we can. And now would be a very good time to get started.”[14]-- An Affordable Salvation By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist. Published: April 30, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

Note the religious terms in the title of this screed and the finality of this statement. Not only is the planet heading for doom, but we must and should save it and here is a way that is cost-effective. More to come in this slapstick. This is one of Krugman’s finest krugmaniacal works.

Now, we get to the phony part as if most of this screed contains a modicum of truth in it:

“The 2008 election ended the reign of junk science in our nation’s capital, and the chances of meaningful action on climate change, probably through a cap-and-trade system on emissions, have risen sharply.”-- Paul Krugman

It is interesting that he uses the exact words that one of his most famous critics uses—one Steve Milloy of http://www.junkscience.com/.

Junk redefined:

“But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.”

Part of the problem with EcoNazism is that they pounded the table and foamed and bawled that the average earth temperature was rising since 1900 and showed graphs and such and then the temperature went down and they looked like fools. [15] Their phony works have been exposed by many such as by Professor David Legates of University of Delaware. [16] Krugman omits any mention of the validity of their ‘scientific’ works in his current screed—only the need to tax the world to stop what their ‘scientists’ wrongly predicted. Apparently, like in 1984[17], up is down and cold may be hot but taxes are always taxes and lies can be truth if more taxes hang in the balance.[18] Either direction is a welcome opportunity to tax and spend.

A famous and phony ‘computer study’ was conducted by MIT in 1970 Limits to Growth book[19] whose sophistical computer models clearly predicted, with ringing praise from the ‘scientists’  that we would run out of oil, copper and lead by 1992 by and natural gas reservoirs by 1993.  Apparently, they missed a few inputs as their GIGO[20] reward is all they have left. But, we cannot say that the publication of this worthless p9iece of political fluff was not without its praise and song from the left, a bunch always looking for a new way to lose.  The liberals need dark follies like Silent Spring[21] to keep their fevers high and their morale low.[22] That may explain whey so many liberals are drug addicts, sodomites and alcoholics. [This paragraph was edited from my previous blog[23]]

“Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.”

Here, we get some concessions that make no sense and are just elements of propaganda. He falsely chides the slavering Tax Ghouls who would sink the world economies by saying the cost would be ‘modest.’ I am sure the cost of sharpening the guillotines during the French Revolution was also a minor cost factor.

“Let’s talk first about those costs.”

Yes, let us do so if you give us some numbers. As we see, he does not.

“A cap-and-trade system would raise the price of anything that, directly or indirectly, leads to the burning of fossil fuels. Electricity, in particular, would become more expensive, since so much generation takes place in coal-fired plants.”

“Electric utilities could reduce their need to purchase permits by limiting their emissions of carbon dioxide — and the whole point of cap-and-trade is, of course, to give them an incentive to do just that. But the steps they would take to limit emissions, such as shifting to other energy sources or capturing and sequestering much of the carbon dioxide they emit, would without question raise their costs.”

How much?? What would the shifty shifting cost?? Numbers please!

“If emission permits were auctioned off — as they should be — the revenue thus raised could be used to give consumers rebates or reduce other taxes, partially offsetting the higher prices. But the offset wouldn’t be complete. Consumers would end up poorer than they would have been without a climate-change policy.”

So, my worthless government—devoid of any trust—will radically change energy costs and give me back my taxes in another form that would offset my tax bill? Are you crazy? Is this a zero sum game?

“But how much poorer? Not much, say careful researchers, like those at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even with stringent limits, says the M.I.T. group, Americans would consume only 2 percent less in 2050 than they would have in the absence of emission limits. That would still leave room for a large rise in the standard of living, shaving only one-twentieth of a percentage point off the average annual growth rate.”

Gee, this is cheap! So is nuclear power—not discussed here. Didn’t this happen with the Great Society where my taxes were going to reduce costs by making our citizens better in terms of education? That failed. What happened to the savings we were supposed to get  from ‘education’ of drug addicts and the rehabilitation of criminals? We spend a lot on taxes and then crime does not go down? We double spending on what the leftists call ‘education’ and high school drop out rates do not diminish.

There is more with some polemics against Newt Gingrich, but they can be dismissed as the usual personal attacks that make the Walter Duranty Papers [24] what they need to be in the leftist view.

As usual, there are no numbers here that make sense. Just some 2% of something left undefined. We hear about the elimination of coal based electricity generation to go to wind or solar or other very expensive energy alternatives. The wind project has no connection to a national power grid and the cost of building one some several hundred of miles long and the interconnections could cost many billions.

Here ARE some numbers:

“Obama says the cap-and-trade approach will “raise” $656 billion over the next decade. The National Economic Council and other analysts put the tax bite at $1.3 to $3.0 trillion.”[25]-- Obama's energy, climate plans would drag U.S. back to 1905 – or 1862. By: Paul Driessen, OpEd Contributor [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

Krugman posing as an economist is pushing emotion and politics in an attempt to distract us from a massive world-wide tax that would preferentially hit the US. Other countries like China and India will not buy in to this phony tax system. These are the zero-growth zombies speaking here and many people like this think that the population of Britain must be cut in half in favor of the inhabitants of Africa or elsewhere.

Read this about downsizing capitalists:

“Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.”[26]-- From The Sunday Times March 22, 2009: UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt by Jonathan Leake and Brendan Montague.

Let us get rid of the Republicans first and save the planet. These parasites really hate us.  As in Soylent Green, most of us should ‘go home[27]’.’

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Futile Attempt of Forcing Equality Among the Masses.

Most of our world history can be boldly indexed according to failures in financial programs and policies. It seems that the Spanish, English, Germans, Italians, Argentineans and many others who had leaders that boasted of some modicum of education and/or we advised by ‘experts’ managed to find ways to trash their own societies in one way or another. Most of the time the government led financial systems packed up in a massive inflation caused by massive debt and defaults.

While many of the examples above derived from imperialism or fascism, the current thoughts on the Absolute Way to create and foster societies uses the same cognitive processes and propaganda, but shifts the emphasis to socialism or Marxism. There have been very few decent governments since 1900 in terms of providing a stable society, plenty of food and a stable currency. We have 190 countries now and most of them are failures headed by dictators, kings or worse.  While in previous times exploration, conquering, commerce and war were the main political driving forces of governments the current political focus in the United States is on the inexpressible notion of equality.

Here is my translation of the current leftist views on egalitarianism:

To realize equality using any metric that is available we first have to presuppose that each individual must be entitled or limited to some measurable quantity of this substance. The excuse frequently used is the zero sum rule,[1]which states, in part, that Africa is poor because the US has stolen their futures and such.  Such thinking is farcical. The most facile first topic to address is always money and its distribution among the masses so the socialists like Bernard Shaw [Shavianism][2] had hoped for forced equality using government policies where they would accept and implement his Fabianism.[3] He monotonously postulated that incomes should be equal. Shaw could not produce a scenario by which this might occur after repeated requests but he did praise the Bolsheviks for their attempts in this area. Of course, the Soviets distributed the loot from their plunder after murdering millions according to party membership thus providing a very good life for the top tier of the 4% of the Russian population who were party members and the rest were left with a much smaller portion or to starve.  Strangely, the leftist can celebrate and praise a flamboyant dictator like Castro who impoverishes their own country and produces poverty, war and famine as long as the money the dictator squanders was derived from the rich or from nationalizing corporate capital. This is a political mental affliction that has yet to be squared with reality. Those liberal Democrats would not like to live under such a system unless they had a guaranteed supply of narcotics at low cost.

If we choose health care as the metric then we must ask if people really do have equal access to such care in any modern state. The issue in the US is frequently confused by equating medical insurance with medical care. Cuba[4] boasts of a low-cost medical system that operates so that “annual health care spending [in Cuba ed.] averages just $230 a person compared with $6,096 in the United States,” a statement [from the NYT]that defies a rational financial conclusion given that a simple blood test costs $400 in the US and cannot be  less [if not subsidized] in Cuba.  That means that a few tests and some minor surgery wipe out the reserve for several dozen people in this phony place where they have ‘free” health care. There is no money in Cuba for even a lousy medical system unless you think rattles, drums and political chants are good medicine. This coverage level is a lie, of course, as the arithmetic demonstrates but lies are important to the left.  The left thrives on lies and the Grand Lie is that we can have ‘equality’ in our time. Canada and England have long waiting lists for operations such as hip replacements in their medical system. This is rationing. A proper medical system rations care? We do not in the US. Cuba rations food. This is equality?

If we choose housing as a metric and specify the number of square feet for each person then we cannot find a place where such equality is in force. Our attempts at high-rise apartments for the poor resulted in disasters like the Cabrini Green project[5] and most of these were imploded and dismissed as failures.

If we choose jobs as a topic and think about equality then we see a wide range of affirmative action programs, quotas, union stonewalling and featherbedding, set-asides, corruption and more that by the very definition force inequality upon the workers. These programs do not provide equality in any way and must rely on racism, politics, unionism and bias against those with the proper work skills to squeeze in persons with lesser skills. The governments have decided to force employers to hire people with lesser skills and employ them on some kind of ‘equality’ footing whereby they cannot perform with those higher up on the scale for obvious reasons. IQ tests are outlawed for hiring because they seem to act disparately against certain minorities and that is the direct result of cognitive skill sorting. What should an IQ test measure if not IQ? IQ differentials are unfair we are told.

Cognitive equality is an oxymoron. There is no way you can give standardized tests and ensure that everybody gets the average test grade with nobody getting a higher or a lower test result. The much maligned Bell Curve[6], sometimes accused of actually causing the ‘problem’ of cognitive distribution in the US, actually states the blunt facts about our societies and the distribution of mental skills. This salient fact that half the people who take the standardized test will score below the median is the rallying point for ‘change’ in ‘education.’[7] That is not fair. Society must be equalized.[8] Thus propaganda must replace education. The Bell Curve correctly predicts who will pass high school, college and who will excel in the work place—and who will not—on a group basis. This fact commits millions to menial jobs but is casus belli for the political left.

Our government decided that ‘affordable housing’ was some obvious social mandate and passed the CRA [Community Reinvestment Act][9][10] that has now created mountains of bad debt[11] by forcing banks to give away free houses to the uncreditworthy low class in exchange for their votes under penalty of prosecution by the government. We now have several trillion dollars in worthless mortgages that are forcing bank failures. The scam here was that banks were forced to loan money to people with poor credit, scant educational skills, drug addicts and even illegal aliens and could peddle this worthless paper into the government financial dumpsters known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two phony big-lie federal quasi-government corporations racked up 3-5 trillion dollars in debt [we don’t know how much yet and it must much larger than that] and started off a steep recession that will probably turn into a depression.[12] We cannot sustain such a high debt and it is quickly doubling during the Obama administration.

We can safely state that this phony government “affordable housing” program is not exactly working according to any known leftist theory of equality. The ‘poor’ cannot pay for their mortgages as predicted[13] so the system is unfair. This observation brings up the broad-spectrum question about any known history of leveling of factors that brought about some form of equality. The closest I can find is the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. [14] This is probably the left’s best effort to achieve equality as they simply suffocated anybody they found who could read or had soft hands.  That is one method that can square off a bell curve—just eliminate the upper half and tail. After a fully rereading of some books like Animal Farm, 1984 and reviewing the Cambodian Splendor, it is clear that people like Castro, Ortega, Chavez, Morales[15] and Kim in North Korea are simply pigs. They deal in poverty, murder and sleaze. They are the exact converse of equality.  The mumblings of Evo Morales who now identifies himself as “Marxist-Leninist” brings the promise of land reform. What a joke. Lenin promised land reform and several million Kulaks [known as Dekulakization^[16]]  died trying to get in on the deal.[17] Food was the issue in the Ukraine and the Soviet solution was Holodomor (Ukrainian: ????????? translation: death by starvation).^[18] The left can seemingly stand up and offer to support the ‘poor’ even thought they preach from atop a pile of 100,000,000 dead bodies.

The government thus assumes that if a market [stocks, houses, etc.] goes up then this is fine as taxes can be raised and money spread around to ‘aid’ the lower classes and pad the salaries of the politicians and their friends. If the market, like housing, goes down and wealth is lost then the government, leaning on the taxpayer as always, must make up the difference with taxes and social programs.  Unemployment and lost tax revenues must be replaced by higher taxes on the upper income levels. This effect generates a spiral whereby more jobs and lost and taxes must be raised, which ensures that tax revenues will decrease. The strange notion here is that jobs and wealth cannot be lost and the government must intervene to reverse such a situation. If the economy sinks and the GDP falls then the government must provide money for jobs and things to pull the GDP back up even though when they raise taxes they thus ruin new job formation. High corporate taxes force businesses to lay off workers. The government seems to believe that the government is the employer of last resort and lately the lender of first and last resort. This would, of course, call for more taxes and so on and so forth. This cycle never ends. To pay for all this socialism the government now prints money which will soon result in massive inflation—an outcome that does not help the poor.

Equality does not exist in our various societies and the quest for such is not a moral or a social endeavor—it is an excuse to dominate the situation with power given to the politicians who will become famous and stuff their pockets with money. Only a fool can read history and look at the thousands of social programs that have failed and conclude that this is a viable option. Every time the far left get their way with government accounts the system crashes and, for a while, the citizens are somewhat ‘equal.’ What these people want is power and the power is derived from other people’s money. They will squander that wealth while pretending to help the poor. They always have.

Our current government is on a wild spending spree and fantasizing about green products, electric cars and other fanciful dreams that are derived from smoking crack or other leftist pastimes. California [or what I call the California Disease][19]  is the test case as they will probably get to the very limit of ‘equality’ as soon as they go bankrupt and unemployment soars in the Golden State. The Gold will surely turn to rust. New York State and New Jersey, all controlled by left liberals will soon follow. Ever notice that the top 10 cities famous for high murder rates are run by 9 Democrats and 1 liberal Republican? The leftists sure know how to run major cities equitably as the propensity to get murdered is similar in these cities. [20]

Something to think about:

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher.[21]

Our government is fast running out of our money and now will print some new money to achieve equality.  Are we to go bankrupt over an impossible social experiment? The answer to this is yes from the far left. What ever it takes!

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman offers Us His True Perspective on the Soul.

Abstract: Paul Krugman of the NYT departs from his usual numerological massage of selected economic datum bits and offers his novel philosophy on reclaiming America’s soul.’ This is, at once, strangely refreshing as he appears to offer us the facts, even as he distorts them, without bias or rancor—defined, of course, within his own liberal framework. This is a true advance in his writings and we are thankful for his candor.  But, his logical approach to solving the morality crisis that he conjures up from pure spite is but a ruse for a crude sort of political revenge that we find in rabid dog fights and is known to be saliently implicit in the industries of narcotics, terrorism and prostitution. His argument falls from grace on the definition of a single word[1], as usual [like the definition of the word ‘economics’ he so often erratically pushes around the word processor]. Other intractable definitions for leftist words appear when we look at terms like racism, bias, justice and other solemn political vectors honed and kept well oiled by the sordid left. They distort these words for political gain. Krugman now advances the field by redefining morality.

Krugman does well with this essay as he reconciles the political process of witch hunts with morality, a syncretic advance in contemporary leftist political theory  and their version of morality in the leftist camp.  A second explanation is that he is just a hate-twisted loser who happens to sing the current tunes that sooth the left.  He needs a diversion as his economic advice will lead us to massive debt and later inflation if we survive the deflationary spiral that has gripped the known world. His distraction is ‘morality.’

Preamble:

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [2]--has a limited set of goals for their paper [as long as it lasts as they are close to bankruptcy] and this narrow list consists of: [1] apologizing for Communism, [2] propping up losers like Al Gore [the new Lysenko.[3]  As 21,000 of us, all scientists refute this crap.[4][5]] and his phony EcoNazism[6] or [3] celebrating AIDS and [4] hatching new lies so as to engorge government with honest taxpayer’s money.  Today, we receive some different and refreshing comments—essentially off topic-- from one of their celebrated writers on the Knowledge and Explanation of the American Soul.

The Coney Island Menagerie that crouch in the shadows at the bankrupt NYT always struggle to reinvent and apologize for Marxism and, currently, Islamo-Fascism. The movements here are a new political Siamese twin thus forming a symbiotic pair for the new-fangled and magical political solutions[7] to achieve a great society where one can happily apply their wondrous dreams to any problem along with the proper level taxes of course. But, we always need a new twist to entice the ignoranti and True Believers to the edge of the Snake Pit for their reward--French Revolution style. These chosen people are self-styled “intellectuals”—they conjure up novel ways to grunt and grab your money. But, today, their famous non-economist resident and decorated igNoble Leechette[8][9][10][11][12], one Paul Krugman, departs from his numerology and today instructs us on The Soul. Thus, Krugman broaches the tacky nostrum of a collective national soul to make his political point while avoiding religion. Novel.

This is exciting!:

“Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” So declared President Obama, after his commendable decision to release the legal memos that his predecessor used to justify torture. Some people in the political and media establishments have echoed his position. We need to look forward, not backward, they say. No prosecutions, please; no investigations; we’re just too busy.”[13]-- Reclaiming America’s Soul by Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: April 23, 2009.  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references quotes in this essay unless otherwise indicated.]

The first part of this paragraph is a quote from President Obama that states that we will not lay blame as he offers up the proof of blame for his predecessor. His lap dogs at the liberal presses now have firm proof of torture and they should fly to the sun and beyond with this and make as much political hay as they can. This form of leftist double talk features the usual two-faced comments and can be translated as: we are going to bury you with your own documents but we said we wouldn’t.  There is little new here. But, the NYT pushes into new frontiers with this conundrum.

Krugman then steps in on part of the content and has this to say answering the question about being too busy:

“And there are indeed immense challenges out there: an economic crisis, a health care crisis, an environmental crisis. Isn’t revisiting the abuses of the last eight years, no matter how bad they were, a luxury we can’t afford?”-- Paul Krugman

Here, we struggle to decipher the embedded double negatives and their meaning. What he means here is that we MUST go after Bush and blame him for any and all ills such as the economic crisis even thought Nancy Pelosi [the Reptile of San Francisco[14] a loathsome, vindictive Marxist parasite also known as Spartacus [15][in honor of the Marxist heroine Rosa Luxemburg] the former chair of the Marxist Progressive Caucus[16] or Congress' Red Army caucus[17] personally approved the spending of every dime in the last three budgets. We must blame Bush for the spending. We must also blame Bush for an ‘illegal war[18]’ and torture.[19]

“No, it isn’t, because America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people[20],” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.”-- Paul Krugman

This fascinating! Harry Truman wasted 160,000 Japanese civilians in less than .1 second, Wilson sent 160,000 soldiers to their deaths in a futile war in Europe we had nothing to with, FDR indirectly murdered 400,000 US soldiers and the Planed Parenthood group has, so far, whacked 25,000,000 babies, but there was no t0rture here! Was any of this immoral?? Some of us must have missed the morality in killing so many people or, worse, abandoning allies such as they did in Laos, Viet Nam and Cambodia.   Apparently, the notion or concept of ‘morality’ has several malleable definitions that can be inserted like pins in a cushion[21] according to the current context. Nobody is more fascinating that Krugman when he plays at mortality or logic. Two scum-grade terrorist dirt bags get their noses watered a few times and we have some moral explosion in North America that requires a Soviet style Show Trial. This is actually the finest work Krugman has produced to date.  He needs to get into the morality business and drop the phony pretext that he knows anything about economics.

[Note: if water boarding is NOT torture [as it is not], then cadit quaestio.[22]

“For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere?”-- Paul Krugman

He then gives a list of busy persons handily wrecking our society [don’t bother to read this tripe…] and economy and sums up with:

“I don’t know about you[23], but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth[24] and enforcing the law[25] even while it goes about its other business.”-- Paul Krugman

Translated as: we always have time to pursue the moral aspects of revenge, churlishness and the opportunity to smear those who came before us.

Krugman sums up and justifies a smear campaign.

“Some of them probably just don’t want an ugly scene; my guess is that the president, who clearly prefers visions of uplift to confrontation, is in that group. But the ugliness is already there,[sic] and pretending it isn’t won’t make it go away.”-- Paul Krugman

The noble quest for the exposition of ugliness!!

Why don’t we do this with Waco, the Martin Luther King FBI files buried away to avoid analysis, the connections between Obama and the radicals in college and perhaps who did what when at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? There is a bunch of ugly there. Why isn’t Jingo Janet Reno on trial? Why don’t we look at where the trillions of dollars went in the bank bailouts? Oh! That is not immoral? We have to focus on some terrorist maggot and his treatment. [26]

Krugman winds up in a fury of spite and churlishness:

“Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness[27], but because this is a nation of laws.”-- Paul Krugman

“We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.”-- Paul Krugman

Krugman is a revenge monger and hate artist and his own words here demonstrate his frenzy and lust for settling of scores. His essay on vindictiveness is very convincing when the nattering is sifted out. He is a first-class hater.  But, this is probably Paul’s best work and we should acknowledge him for that. What we need to reclaim is from the left’s immoral practices and we need to prevent sloth, sodomy, drug addiction, perversions and tax mongering “for the sake of our future.  We have no meaningful future with Marxists and their Islamic stooges.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com