Let's face it, the NYT liberal weltanschaung is collapsing around their well coiffed ears.
They are adrift now in an unknown, an evil dark world.
What do they do? They begin to turn on each other. They fight it like demons, trying to hold together, present a united front, but the gathering circumstances now grind them down now inexorably.
Whom do they sacrifice first?
It seems unimaginable that Krugman might be the one, a sacrificial lamb to the populist anti globalist god, now roaring ever closer and closer in the blackest night.
But when you come to think about it, it makes some maccabre sense.
Once you have a TLF globalized market economy, it tells you what is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, not the other way around.
So then, why would one ever then, and now, want or need an economist anymore anyway for anything?
If policymakers now make mistakes here or there, the market itself will correct them, punish them back into line, so to speak, without the need for a pesky economics pundit spouting platitudes or axioms or wonkish Cartesian mathematical Mickey Mouse models at them.
So the fricking Fed is about to lower, infinitesimally, the ludicrous interest rate. Why should you or the Fed have the Pontiff Krugman breathing down your or their neck, with his hot fetid breath of close economic judgmental sadducee scrutiny anymore.
If the Fed gets it wrong, the nimble global market will almost immediately punish them back into regulatory equilibrium submission, without Krugman's intervention in those lace like decisions one way or another.
His job is done! we are now at the end of history and the last man re economic theory! Voila!
On the other hand, if he and his progeny and economic progenitors have been wrong all along, then we have no need of his services on the other side of the coin of history, and can let him go to grass.
Either way, whether now happily superfluous, or shown to have always been wrong in the past, Krugman may now be the first NYT pundit to go.
One thing seems clear to me: he cannot save himself by collaborating with, or making common cause with Thomas L Friedman.
Friedman is already now something of a tar baby among the cognoscenti, but can hang in there by further dissembling, an option only somewhat less open to Krugman.
The editorial board is beginning to realize that they have no plan B regarding the failure of economic globalization, and they have no one else who is professionally responsible to throw under the bus on that than Krugman.
Everyone knows that TLF is not an economist, but rather a cheerleader for the editorial board's ideology, so they can't properly blame the ignoramus messenger they themselves empowered and invoked. The editorial board is flat.
Thomas L Friedman says his views aren't mush.
Trust me, TLF's views are mush. They are the kind of mush that Pillsbury describes in The Hundred Year Marathon.
Call it a TLF Pig's Breakfast!
But when you come to think about it, it makes some maccabre sense.
Once you have a TLF globalized market economy, it tells you what is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, not the other way around.
So then, why would one ever then, and now, want or need an economist anymore anyway for anything?
If policymakers now make mistakes here or there, the market itself will correct them, punish them back into line, so to speak, without the need for a pesky economics pundit spouting platitudes or axioms or wonkish Cartesian mathematical Mickey Mouse models at them.
So the fricking Fed is about to lower, infinitesimally, the ludicrous interest rate. Why should you or the Fed have the Pontiff Krugman breathing down your or their neck, with his hot fetid breath of close economic judgmental sadducee scrutiny anymore.
If the Fed gets it wrong, the nimble global market will almost immediately punish them back into regulatory equilibrium submission, without Krugman's intervention in those lace like decisions one way or another.
His job is done! we are now at the end of history and the last man re economic theory! Voila!
On the other hand, if he and his progeny and economic progenitors have been wrong all along, then we have no need of his services on the other side of the coin of history, and can let him go to grass.
Either way, whether now happily superfluous, or shown to have always been wrong in the past, Krugman may now be the first NYT pundit to go.
One thing seems clear to me: he cannot save himself by collaborating with, or making common cause with Thomas L Friedman.
Friedman is already now something of a tar baby among the cognoscenti, but can hang in there by further dissembling, an option only somewhat less open to Krugman.
The editorial board is beginning to realize that they have no plan B regarding the failure of economic globalization, and they have no one else who is professionally responsible to throw under the bus on that than Krugman.
Everyone knows that TLF is not an economist, but rather a cheerleader for the editorial board's ideology, so they can't properly blame the ignoramus messenger they themselves empowered and invoked. The editorial board is flat.
Thomas L Friedman says his views aren't mush.
Trust me, TLF's views are mush. They are the kind of mush that Pillsbury describes in The Hundred Year Marathon.
Call it a TLF Pig's Breakfast!
No comments:
Post a Comment