Krugman to Opponents: Please Stop Thinking

Krugman's economic policies virtually always entail taking money from responsible, hard-working people to help spendthrifts. This obviously raises certain moral issues, most notably whether responsible people should suffer to help the irresponsible. I suppose that reasonable people could disagree on this issue, but Krugman doesn't even discuss it. Instead, when faced with thorny moral issues, Krugman has repeatedly said that "economics is not a morality play" (emphasis in original)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/economics-is-not-a-morality-play/

Krugman's assertions that economics isn't a morality play always take place in the context of income redistribution. Opponents of Keynesian policies argue that aside from being economic suicide, its profoundly unethical to redistribute income from the responsible to the irresponsible. Krugman's response is fairly summarized as "distribution of income doesn't matter; all that matters is facilitating economic growth."

This statement is both wrong and massively dishonest. Krugman's position is that there is no moral dimension to economic growth, and that moral considerations are subordinate, indeed perhaps irrelevant to, economic questions. However, moral questions inhere in economics. Slavery is primarily an economic phenomenon. I cannot imagine Krugman, or anyone else, arguing that the morality of slavery is irrelevant because "economics is not a morality play." The same can be said for any number of other issues -- child labor, environmental issues, labor vs. capital, etc. To deny that there are any moral issues involved in the questions of economic policy is absurd on its face.

Krugman's position is also incredibly dishonest. Krugman, and the left generally, has long argued that economic growth is less important than equality, and, that growth should be sacrificed for equality. In other words, according to the left, there is a moral dimension to economics, specifically the distribution of income -- too much inequality is, as a moral matter, bad. After arguing that the distribution of income is of great moral significance, and something worth sacrificing growth for for decades, Krugman now wants to pretend that the morality of a given income distribution is irrelevant, and should not even be discussed.

The reason is obvious. The left has advocated redistributing wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" for decades. There is at least some moral sense to this position -- helping the less fortunate is a humane act. So, Krugman, et al could grandstand how their redistributionist polices were moral endeavors, and that they should be applauded for overcoming greed and helping the poor.

But, the redistribution that Krugman is now advocating isn't from the rich to the poor, its from the responsible to the irresponsible. Instead of helping a single mother, or a poor senior citizen, Krugman is advocating bailing out the UAW, banks that should have failed, and people who bought homes that they couldn't afford, destroying responsible peoples' wealth in the process.

The redistribution that Krugman advocates has been stripped of any moral basis. The narrative is no longer helping the helpless, but rather helping the reckless and the greedy. When confronted with policies' gross immorality, Krugman tries to pretend that such moral questions simply do not matter.

But, either income distribution has a moral dimension or it does not. If Krugman believes that there is no moral dimension to the trade-off between efficiency and equality, and the resulting distribution of income, then the entire rationale for the welfare state disappears, as there is nothing less moral about high levels of inequality than low levels of inequality. If however, as Krugman generally argues, certain distirbutions of income are more ethical than others, then Krugman has to defend the morality of the redistribution that he is advocating.

Instead of actually defending his position, Krugman, is as his wont, dodges the issue, simply relying on the glib, dishonest, hypocritical, and thoughless statement that "economics is not a morality play." Krugman is inviting his readers not to think. What's distressing is how many liberals have RSVPed yes.

Global Warming: Krugman's Escape Hatch

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Advocates of tight money such as myself have long argued that loose monetary policy by the Fed would drive the price of international commodities much higher for Americans. I wish I could claim some brilliance for this insight, but it is as obvious as it is simple: if you print pieces of green paper with no intrinsic value, the value of each piece of paper goes down, raising prices for Americans.

And, this has occured. As much as Krugman likes to pretend that inflation is tame, the price of all commodities, including oil, gold, and most recently, food, has surged. Krugman's policies have again made Americans poorer. But, according to Krugman, he isn't to blame, because high commodity prices have been caused not by loose monetary policy but GLOBAL WARMING.

Krugman, desparately seeking to explain away yet another failure of Keynesian policies, is now blaming global warming for the economic fallout of his policies. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: with Krugman, whether its the Great Depression, Japan, or Obama, you get excuses, not results.