In some ways this is another “how can people not see….” post – accept I think I know why people can not see the absurdity of Keynesian economics, they are utterly brainwashed into it. Not just by formal education (both school and university – so the more “educated” in economics they are the worse, in some ways, they may be), but also by the media (including the entertainment media) which constantly claims such absurdities as spending is good and saving is bad (and that investment is good – without seeing any link between saving and investment), and that unemployment and rising prices are alternatives. This is not a comment on the intelligence of the elite, they may well be highly intelligent (much more intelligent, on average, than nonestablishment people), but they have been picked out when young (because of their ability to absorb what they are taught – and because of their interest in policy) and “educated” in doctrines that are not just false, but are (in various respects) the opposite of the truth.
All the absurdities of Keynesian “economics” were on display in today’s Clive Crook article in the Financial Times (even if I did links – I still would not link to this, it almost made me explode with rage and grief).
Supposedly in a “special case” (itself nothing more the consequence of Keynesian monetary expansion and wild government spending – i.e. “monetary and fiscal stimulus”) rising productivity (people working more effectively) is bad, wage flexibility (i.e. a free market in labour) leads to higher (not lower) unemployment, less regulations are bad as well (especially in the labour market) and on and on. Work and saving bad, innovation bad (shades of Barack Obama blaming higher unemployment on ATM machines and computers generally), everything that political economy said was good is bad and everything that political economy said was bad (lazyness, spendthriftness, lack of innovation, waste….) is good.
And we are supposed to applaud – as people do when a modern physicist shows how the universe does not accord with the old fuddy duddy notions of human logic. As if economics was physics and Keynes sat in the place of Einstein, producing a “new economics” to match the “new physics” (in reality the subjects are totally different).
These “paradoxies” are, of course, just absurdities (like saying that A is not A, or that I am am you), Clive Crook’s article exposes Keynesian “economics” to be either a pack of lies or the ravings of a lunatic.
Yet Mr Crook does not see this – on the contrary, he does not even use the word “Keynesian”. To him these absurdities are just what economics is – explained by wonderful “studies” by Paul Krugman (a winning of the so called “Nobel Prize” in economics – and as fitting a winner as Barack Obama was as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) and by Mr Crook’s own fellow writer at the Financial TImes – Martin Wolfe (a man who “explained” how in this “special case” lazyness and lack of innovation are good things – because higher productivity, working more effectively, is a bad thing).
How does one reach a mind that can lay out (quite openly and directly) the most blatent absurdities – and yet not see that they are absurd? Instead seeing them as clever pieces of economics?
I do not think one can reach such a mind – it is too far gone. Too saturated in absurdites that it can only react to the failure of print-and-spend by demanding more print-and-spend and by denouncing anything that actually makes sense (like higher productivity or alllowing labour, and other, markets to clear – by allowing prices, and wages, to adjust to supply and demand).
And Mr Crook does not just speak for himself – he is typical of the academic, media, political and (yes) business establishment. The establishment (the elite) is rotten to the core – these people can not be saved (their minds are too corrupted) and their power makes them a clear and present danger to the survival of civilization.
The sakes are as high as that.
What should be done to remove the influence of these people? I do not know – I wish I did know, but I do not.