Paul Krugman: What They Say Versus What They Mean
Over at Wonkblog, Lydia DePillis asks, “Remember when Republicans were worried about ‘economic uncertainty’?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/remember-when-republicans-were-worried-about-economic-uncertainty/
Actually, no, I don’t. I remember when they claimed to be worried about economic uncertainty — but it was completely obvious even at the time that this was nothing but an attempt to put a new, quasi-academic gloss on the same old same old. What they really meant was that the economy will boom only once we get rid of the Islamic atheist Kenyan socialist, and install someone who will be nice to rich people. They grabbed hold of some research that seemed, if you didn’t read it carefully, to support their complaints, but there was never any question that they would drop the uncertainty thing the moment it became inconvenient for their real goals. And so they did.
It’s a lot like the austerity debate, where it was obvious all along that all the carping on debt was really a way to go after the welfare state — a point demonstrated forcefully by the hostile reaction of people like Olli Rehn when the French began reducing their deficit by raising taxes rather than slashing benefits.
The point is that there are a lot fewer good-faith economic arguments out there than a naive observer might think — and that’s precisely because powerful forces are doing their best to hoodwink said naive observers.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/what-they-say-versus-what-they-mean/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=aut
= new reply since forum marked as read
