Some of you may be familiar with the work of the Economic Policy Institute -the organization that “Works for People Who Work for a Living.” You can imagine what that euphemism means. It means higher minimum wages, free health care for everybody, lots and lots of union jobs, and so forth. But don’t I work for a living? Does not my wife (soon to be a nurse) work for a living? Of course these guys don’t work for me – they work for some people that work for a living and a lot of people who actually don’t work for a living.
It should therefore come as no surprise that in honor of their 25th anniversary they have named Paul Krugman as their first annual “Distinguished Economist.” The winner of next year’s second one is also featured prominently in the video.
Here are some highlights in case you don’t want to watch all 6 minutes (you should do it however).
“(Paul is) As close to having an “indispensable man” as we can have right now”
No man is near indispensable. Whatever Paul’s merits, and he surely has them, such a sentiment tells you a heckuva lot about the mindset of folks who worship at the altar of the intelligentsia. That doesn’t inspire me inasmuch as frighten me.
Here is motivation from Paul:
“I want a decent society … I don’t want the kind of society we’re turning into … which is one where one misstep, one piece of bad luck, among other things such as the bad luck of having the wrong parents means you plunge into the abyss … That doesn’t have to be true in the 21st century ”
Well hell, don’t we all Paul. You might want to pause for like two minutes, and like, perhaps, like, consider that there might be someone outside the left who also hopes to have a decent society. And gosh, that some of us don’t revel in the misery of others. And gosh, that some of us think we can be doing better too. And gosh, isn’t this sentiment just so … heartwarming?
Well, it is disturbing that such a clip made it into the video. Isn’t it the assumption that the good majority of us are hoping for a better world? It’s the height of arrogance and megalomania to portray yourself as someone above the fray and the rest of us unwashed simply are hateful or stupid or both. Come on.
So, Paul, what motivates you to work so tirelessly in the pursuit of truth and to write column after column after column? You just said it was because you want a better world, right? Here’s his words:
“George Bush was lying and paid no price for it ”
Now of course, it is certainly plausible that George Bush was leading us to a place that made America worse off. But why was that not what he said? I guess his audience is smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. But seriously, is Krugman motivated by truth seeking (as he tells us) … or revenge? And some of the things Krugman needed to take revenge on?
“Bush lied when he said majority of tax cuts go to bottom end … and … Krugman “demolished” the case for privatizing social security…” Well, the first half of this is empirically verifiable – I encourage readers to see what Bush said (and perhaps do your own inferring about what he meant) in that regard. As for demolishing the case for privatizing social security – does that mean Bush lied about it? In future posts we’ll dig up some of those demolishing arguments and let you see exactly what they amount to. It’s the EPI’s assessment, not Paul’s of course.
The second winner of this prestigious award is quoted toward the end of the film, “… it takes a certain kind of bravery to blow the whistle, and Paul has it, and we are all thankful.”
Again, an amazing commitment to dispassionate truth seeking! It does, indeed take bravery to blowing the whistle. While we are talking in sports analogies, referees are not exactly famous for blowing the whistle fairly or effectively are they?
UPDATE: Good quality analysis and evidence by the awarding agency.