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