Friday, July 02, 2010

Who Is Krugman Describing

Anyone we know?
When I was young and naïve, I believed that important people took positions based on careful consideration of the options. Now I know better. Much of what Serious People believe rests on prejudices, not analysis. And these prejudices are subject to fads and fashions.
Of course Krugman was being naive, our Prime Minister has built a career on personal ideological prejudice.

Update: Note Krugman's despair at the stupidity of it all. I guess like most Americans, he has not been paying attention to the rise of our Dear Leader and his crack team of economic geniuses.

Update 2: And finally, a challenge to the MSM. If you ever get the chance to ask Harper another question, perhaps you can formulate it, using Krugman's final paragraph as its base:
So the next time you hear serious-sounding people explaining the need for fiscal austerity, try to parse their argument. Almost surely, you’ll discover that what sounds like hardheaded realism actually rests on a foundation of fantasy, on the belief that invisible vigilantes will punish us if we’re bad and the confidence fairy will reward us if we’re good. And real-world policy — policy that will blight the lives of millions of working families — is being built on that foundation.
Recommend this Post


  1. The "invisible vigilantes" are otherwise known as "Canadian voters".

  2. If you think voters are vigilantes now, wait after a couple of years of unnecessary austerity, when things are really bad. .

  3. Depends on which voters. I can tell you, if Harper and Flaherty hadn't come up with a path back to a balanced budget, however gradual (2014-2015?), the Tory grassroots would have tarred and feathered them.

    Right-wing voters will abandon their party, if they stray far enough -- cf the 1990s.