Updated: Psychopathic Paul Krugman Laments Lack of Earthquake Destruction

(Updated – the earthquake comment has turned out to originate from a fake Paul Krugman account; however, the others are quite real.  I personally reviewed the account, which has posts going back over a month, before posting this. I was convinced by the comments that the account was legitimate.  As we can see by several other legitimate Krugman posts, the earthquake comment is completely keeping in line with what Krugman preaches. )

Paul Krugman’s Google Plus account writes:

“People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.”

Paul Krugman writes in his article Oh! What A Lovely War!:

“World War II is the great natural experiment in the effects of large increases in government spending, and as such has always served as an important positive example for those of us who favor an activist approach to a depressed economy.”

Paul Krugman states on CNN:

“If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” he said. “And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better”

Paul Krugman wrote this on his blog.

And yes, this does mean that the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary, if not for Japan then at least for the world as a whole. If this sounds crazy, well, liquidity-trap economics is like that — remember, World War II ended the Great Depression.

Paul Krugman had this to say in a NYT editorial.

Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday’s horror [the 9/11 attacks].  These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy [the bombing of Pearl Harbor], which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.

If this doesn’t convince you that socialists like Krugman are actually closet psychopaths, I don’t know what will.

Obviously Krugman’s claims are so utterly preposterous that they don’t even need refuting, but for the die hard commies I feel compelled to present this:

The Broken Window Fallacy

From That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat, 1850

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation: “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs — I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is seen.

If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labor, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs in shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window. Now, as James B. forms a part of society, must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labors, it has lost the value of the broken window.

Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed,” and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — to break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labor; or, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”

What will you say, Moniteur Industriel? What will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen.

“Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention.

One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two.

Another, under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident.

The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labor suffers proportionately by the same cause.

It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favor, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying — what would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

  • improvement not politics

    Krugman’s statement is simply factual.  A larger earthquake would have resulted in increased spending.  It doesn’t mean he was advocating for a larger earthquake.

    You were already convinced that he is a pychopath therefore you read his statement as pychopathic.  That’s part of the whole problem.  Too many people have settled on their world view and incoming messages are not considered in an informed or thoughtful way to alter that world view if appropriate.    Instead, the messages are used to vilify those holding (or simply expressing) alternate world views, or to hampion those holding the same world views.  You post here is an excellent example of this.

    • Exuberant1

      “You were already convinced that he is a pychopath therefore you read his statement as pychopathic”

      Krugman isn’t exactly new to the scene.  He has had years to show us all how fucked up his brain is.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500475268 Manuel Amador

      Why would he state that “fact” if he wasn’t THINKING or DESIRING that fact to come to pass?  Because he is just “making thought experiments”?  Yeah… sure…

      • improvement not politics

        Krugman is an academic.  yeah…sure…thought experiments are EXACTLY what academics do.   Look at situations and think about how actions would impact those situations.  Even though this particular blog post was proven fake,  the followup examples are in the same vein.  There is no advocacy, simply an analysis of potential effects.  But I’m wasting my time here.  As I first stated, this site has already decided Krugman is psychotic.  Rational explanations won’t change that.

        • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

          Because  “And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better” is a rational argument that deserves to be treated credibly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500475268 Manuel Amador

    Paul Krugman is either evil or a perfect imbecile.  I am inclined to believe he is just self-servingly evil.

  • Derp

    I’m sure Krugman said it would be more honest for his critics to call him evil, rather than stupid.

  • Pingback: It Was Only a Matter of Time… « econolol()

  • Theron

    You are aware he is isn’t advocating any of these things, merely discussing possible aftermaths. But reading comprehension and critical thinking are in short supply in the authoritarian mind.

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      Because “And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better” – isn’t really advocating that we would be better off if we wasted a massive fortune preparing for an alien invasion.

      Of course he is advocating for more war and endless spending! That is the entire premise of his arguments!

  • http://www.allaspectsuk.co.uk/location/worcestershire/worcester/central-heating.asp Pest Controllers

    This is a great article.This is well informative.The written skill is so good.I like this one.This is really an amazing.I am so much impressed to this post.I appreciate to this post.Thanks to share this well informative blog.Keep it up.I will keep share in future.