Paul Krugman is at it again. And, he continues to leave me with the question ‘is he stupid or just evil?’
One never knows. I do know he entirely missed the mark, again, with his latest gibberish infested article in the NY Times. His title is even inane.
Yeh, probably, the world will never see economic growth ever again. Idiot.
The article starts innocently enough. And as usual he sprinkles just enough truth in his article to be believable to the average person……
The long-term projections produced by official agencies, like the Congressional Budget Office, generally make two big assumptions. One is that economic growth over the next few decades will resemble growth over the past few decades. In particular, productivity — the key driver of growth — is projected to rise at a rate not too different from its average growth since the 1970s. On the other side, however, these projections generally assume that income inequality, which soared over the past three decades, will increase only modestly looking forward.
This is true. There is no guarantee that economic growth will mirror what we’ve seen in the last couple of decades. And, there is no guarantee that productivity will be the key driver, although it stretches credulity that productivity won’t increase even more.
This is a profoundly insidious thought. It has no basis in economic theory and is meaningless except to people engaged in covertness and class warfare. It is a most statist concept.
What do I care, what does anyone care about what their neighbor is making? If I have enough to house, feed, and otherwise care for myself and family, what difference is it that someone else may have a bit more stuff? Who cares? No one except those who engage in one of the deadly sins. The concept of income inequality covers most of them. ….. wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.
Now, as a person of faith, I don’t make one sin worse than any other, save one. Still, one can’t help but notice how much the concept of income inequality engages in this list of all too common malfeasance. Greed, lust, and envy are easily seen in the concept of income inequality. Indeed, the entire concept is predicated upon envy. Without envy, the concept of income inequality cannot exist. Anyone who uses this concept as a measure of economic conditions preys upon one of the most base notions in human history. And they wield it as a sword.
But, sloth and gluttony can also be seen in this concept. It’s easy to look at a neighbor and see all of the stuff he has. And, it’s easy to complain about it. But, most people who have achieved financial success has spent an enormous amount of effort to attain much of what they have. Some look at their neighbor and desire to have what they have, but, are much chagrin to put as much effort into achieving the level of success his neighbor has.
As I mentioned before, what is it to anyone if their neighbor has more? If you have enough, you have enough. To desire more than enough puts one perilously close to gluttony. That is to say, if one looks over and sees his neighbor having more and consuming more, and then to be desirous of that same “more” when there is no need for more, then it is the equivalent to gluttony.
Pride is also found in this envy. For people to put weight in “income inequality” it also preys upon the nature of pride. For many people, the acquisition of material objects is a source of pride. I can look to my neighbor residing in a big house and see pride in his accomplishment, or a new shiny boat, or a nice fancy car. People who espouse the notion of “income inequality” wish other people had that same pride. How noble.
Finally wrath. The notion of “income inequality” relies on the anger of the people who engage in envy. These people are noticeably angry. Look at the OWS people. This is who they are, this is what they are about. This is what Obama is, this is what he’s about. This is what the left is, this is what the left is about. Throughout the last several years, we’ve seen this notion expand. This notion is completely based upon the most base of human nature.
People like Krugman disgust me to no end. The exploit the most vile parts of human nature to advance an ideology which has been a scourge to humanity since it’s inception. The only ideology which advances the notion that there should be no income inequality is the same notion which as caused untold and immeasurable suffering humanity. It suppresses liberty and has deprived people of the most basic gift of all, life. You can call it what you will, communism, Marxism, socialism, the end result, the final destination for concepts such as “income inequality” is a very meager existence in a totalitarian society where human depravity is state sponsored. A place where except for a select few, all will be placed in a position to where even the most basic gift of life is no longer a gift, but a curse.
All of that from such a little phrase in Krugman’s most recent form of idiocy. But, Krugman wasn’t done babbling his stupidity. He even notes the eventuality which comes from advancing such an idea of “income inequality”.
On the other hand, if income inequality continues to soar, we’re looking at a dystopian, class-warfare future — not the kind of thing government agencies want to contemplate.
No doubt! That’s because the notion is class-warfare! But, Krugman still isn’t finished with his stupidity. He references another moron, to finalize his inanity.
Recently, Robert Gordon of Northwestern University created a stir by arguing that economic growth is likely to slow sharply — indeed, that the age of growth that began in the 18th century may well be drawing to an end.
Mr. Gordon points out that long-term economic growth hasn’t been a steady process; it has been driven by several discrete “industrial revolutions,” each based on a particular set of technologies. The first industrial revolution, based largely on the steam engine, drove growth in the late-18th and early-19th centuries. The second, made possible, in large part, by the application of science to technologies such as electrification, internal combustion and chemical engineering, began circa 1870 and drove growth into the 1960s. The third, centered around information technology, defines our current era.
And, as Mr. Gordon correctly notes, the payoffs so far to the third industrial revolution, while real, have been far smaller than those to the second. Electrification, for example, was a much bigger deal than the Internet.
He finishes with this….
But — and this is the crucial question — who will benefit from that growth? Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to make the case that most Americans will be left behind, because smart machines will end up devaluing the contribution of workers, including highly skilled workers whose skills suddenly become redundant. …….
What, then, are the implications of this alternative vision for policy? Well, I’ll have to address that topic in a future column.
Yes, the Luddites could still be correct!!! Idiot. Yes, things change. They always do. The tech advancements we’re making today does often make the skills one gains obsolete fairly quickly. I can attest to such. Still, that doesn’t mean a vacuum is created, it simply means another has filled a place. Production didn’t move to China because machines have taken place of humanity. Production moved to China because of the need for human labor. When we’ve automatically provided the needs of clothing all of humanity, housed all of humanity, fed all of humanity, then we can worry about the need of human labor.