This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Paul Krugman Obsession

I noticed a disturbing trend on many libertarian/minarchist/anarchist websites. I've noticed this on reason.com, lewrockwell.com, mises.org, and other websites.

Paul Krugman writes something stupid. Then, people spend a lot of time explaining exactly why he's wrong. Paul Krugman has a regular NY Times column, giving him plenty of opportunity to spread lies. Each article contains plenty of evil fnords.

Paul Krugman is a shill for the State. He acts like a clever thinker. He's really making up excuses justifying an increase in State power.

Before you realize that the State is one big scam, it's frustrating to see Paul Krugman touted as a genius. This comment in this post on reason.com had a good explanation, regarding "Why is this idiot so widely touted as a genius?"

He tells a certain wealthy and disproportionately influential class exactly what they want to hear.
The role of the Supreme Court is to make up fancy-sounding excuses for increasing State power. A State-licensed economist also makes up lies. He's justifying State economic power instead of State political/violent power.

Just because Paul Krugman won the Nobel Communism Prize doesn't mean he actually knows anything useful. When State awards are given via "peer review", then that encourages corruption and ****sucking rather than genuine thinking.

For example, someone who wrote "The USA has a corrupt monetary system!" would probably not win a Nobel Communism prize. He probably wouldn't be able to get a mainstream economics journal to publish his paper. He wouldn't get any State research grants. He probably wouldn't be able to get tenure. In this manner, independent thinkers are weeded out of the State academic monopoly.

If I had to think of a system for suppressing scientific progress, it would be hard to come up with something better than "peer review" combined with a State monopoly for funding science. "Peer review" turns science into a popularity contest.

Refuting every pro-State troll is frustrating and time consuming. Even if I could arrange an interview with Paul Krugman, I wouldn't be able to explain his logical fallacies to him. He's too pro-State brainwashed. Trying to explain real economics to Paul Krugman would be like explaining to my psychiatrist or therapist that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is wrong. Once you've crossed a certain pro-State brainwashing threshold, it's very hard to realize the truth. It would be too traumatic of a mental shift.

Superficially, writing articles refuting idiots seems like a good idea. However, you're defining yourself in relation to pro-State trolls, rather than doing your own thing. If I refuted every stupid thing I read, it would be more than a full time job!

The people who think "Paul Krugman is such a genius!" probably aren't reading my blog or libertarian/minarchist/anarchist websites. It's offensive that the NY Times and mainstream media only publish lies.

The mainstream media acts like a State-owned business. The same insiders who control the mainstream media control the government. Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone wield more influence than the President and most politicians. By covering or ignoring an issue, they have lots of influence. I saw a reporter for 60 Minutes brag "We did a story on Obama back in 2006, before he was considered a Presidential candidate!" Did they cover him because he was a good politician, or did they cover him because he'd already been picked as a suitable figurehead?

Free popular mainstream media coverage made it easy for Obama to get elected. They gradually rachet up the coverage. This gives the illusion that he had overwhelming popular support. Did Obama get favorable mainstream media coverage because he was so popular? Or, did he become popular because he got favorable mainstream media coverage? Imagine if some mainstream media source kept mentioning "Taxation is theft!"

The mainstream media says "We don't have an obligation to cover your viewpoint. We're privately owned." The problem is that they have a State-backed monopoly, although the Internet is changing things. Politicians are once again considering a law that would cripple free speech on the Internet, the "DISCLOSE Act". State parasites hate the Internet, because it's enabling intelligent people to share information and discover their fraud.

The mainstream media presents false opposites as genuine debate. They might have one person say "The Federal Reserve should raise interest rates." while another person says "The Federal Reserve should keep interest rates low." This creates the illusion of debate. "Is a Federal Reserve credit monopoly a good idea?" is not debated.

It's a dangerous intellectual trap. You shouldn't waste a lot of time refuting pro-State trolls. Now that I've mostly cracked my pro-State brainwashing, the logical fallacies are pathetically obvious. The false arguments do follow predictable patterns.

Whenever I read other freedom-oriented websites, it's annoying to see some mistakes repeated over and over again. One common theme now is "Not another article refuting Paul Krugman!" It gets tiresome after awhile.

3 comments:

Trufu said...

I really enjoy your perceptive explanations of the current scientific system.

Anonymous said...

In your article you said that the US dollar is controlled by the US Federal Government.

That statement is false.

The US dollar is controlled by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve in NOT part of the US Government. It is a private banking group.

That private banking group is run by Jews.

Ben SHALOM Bernanke...

Shalom :(

I suppose if you are a Jew - you will "moderate" my comment...otherwise you'd let it stand.

FSK said...

It is more accurate to view the conflict as "productive vs. parasite". When you say "Jews vs. non-Jews", you're falling for the State propaganda of viewing the conflict as racial.

There are many Jewish banksters, but it isn't 100%.

Congress could, at any time, change the Federal Reserve law. That makes them nominally in charge.

However, the banksters wield a lot of political influence. They buy votes and Congressmen with the money Congress lets them print. That makes reform impossible.

It is more accurate to say "The banksters control the government." than "Government controls banks."

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.