Monday, November 1, 2010

The Contradictions In The Life of A Fluffer

A “fluffer” is the person on a pornographic film shoot who makes sure that the male lead has an erection, and can thus “perform” at the appropriate moments. Remember Boogie Nights? Remember the fat little tub-o’-lard brilliantly played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman? The one who had a secret homosexual crush on Mark Wahlberg’s porn-star character? That’s a fluffer. 
Brad DeLong is Paul Krugman’s fluffer. 
Brad DeLong
DeLong is an economist at UC Berkeley, a Neo-Keynesian like his charge. (I’m sure I’ll get an earful for that characterization). Basically, Krugman and DeLong and their followers think that fiscal spending via deficits is the only way to turn around the economy. Fiscal spending, according to this macro-economic worldview, is the determining factor in the growth of a modern economy.
DeLong has worked with Krugman on quite a few different projects—but DeLong’s real job is making sure Krugman stays hard, and stays aimed at the appropriate hole, as it were. I mean, after all, he’s Krugman’s fluffer—that’s his job: To keep the talent erect and ready to perform, while dispatching any and all distractions. 
Full disclosure: I was one of those distractions that got Krugman all soft. I wrote a piece where I pointed out that Krugman was clearly opening the inference for readers to think that a war might be the only solution for America’s fiscal problems. 
DeLong called me “batshit insane”—which I sort of liked, actually. Sort of like the name of the super-villain in a cheesy James Bond rip-off: “My name is Insane—Batshit Insane.” I was thinking of having business cards made up. 
Anyway: Recently, DeLong called for either the resignation of David Broder of the Washington Post, or the resignation in protest of the Washington Post staff, or a combination thereof. Why? Because according to DeLong, Broder’s most recent editorial was calling for a war with Iran, in order to save the U.S. economy. 
Hmmm . . . 
See, the reason DeLong had given me my cool super-villain name was because I had pointed out that Paul Krugman was not so subtly advocating war as a solution to America’s economic problems. DeLong threw a hissy fit—at me, for pointing out the full implications of Krugman’s writings. 
Paul Krugman, and his cat.
But now, DeLong was throwing another hissy fit—only at David Broder, for saying essentially what Krugman had said. 
Apart from these two episodes showing that Brad DeLong is big on hissy fits, they do seem to point to some glaring contradictions in Mr. DeLong’s worldview. 
But don’t take my word for it: Take Mr. Krugman’s and Mr. Broder’s and Mr. DeLong’s word for it. 
First, what Broder wrote: 
In fairly mild, fairly pro-Obama editorial, Broder dismisses any real challenges to the president in the 2012 re-election, and finds that the only real thorn in Obama’s side is the economy—Broder correctly points out that the president really doesn’t have any control over it. 
The Broder editorial ends with this: 
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy. 
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II. 
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve. 
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
Broder might have put up a mealy-mouthed disclaimer—“I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get re-elected”—but that’s exactly what he’s saying. There’s really no other way to read it. 
DeLong pointed this out—actually, DeLong had a hissy fit, as is his wont, and called for the resignation-as-punishment of Broder, and the resignation-as-protest of the rest of the staff of the Washington Post. DeLong concluded with the following: 
Broder is the worst. He is monstruous. 
Poor Brad did not call for the resignation of anyone at the New York Times, when Krugman essentially argued for the same thing, in the op-ed pages and the blog that he has on the NY Times site. 
From Krugman’s “1938 is 2010” editorial from this past Labor Day Weekend:
From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. [. . .] 
Had anyone proposed spending even a fraction that much [$30 trillion] before the war, people would have said the same things they’re saying today. They would have warned about crushing debt and runaway inflation. They would also have said, rightly, that the Depression was in large part caused by excess debt — and then have declared that it was impossible to fix this problem by issuing even more debt.
But guess what? Deficit spending created an economic boom — and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity.

By “boom”, Krugman is of course referring to the Post-War Boom. 
From Krugman’s “Arsenal of Recovery” blog post this past September 25:
A very nice new paper by Gordon and Krenn on the end of the Great Depression.
Although they don’t quite say so explicitly, the paper is to an important extent an answer to Robert Barro’s claim that the World War II experience shows that multipliers are low, because private spending actually fell during the war; as I and others have tried to point out, this was because it was, you know, wartime, with rationing of consumer goods and sharp restrictions on private investment.
What Gordon and Krenn point out is that we actually have more information than a simple comparison between the depressed peacetime economy and the war economy after Pearl Harbor: there was a period of more than two years when the United States was gearing up for war but not yet engaged in combat — the Arsenal of Democracy era. Rationing was not yet in effect, and for at least part of this period the economy still had excess capacity despite a very large rise in government spending.
What they find is that when there was still excess capacity, there was a quite large multiplier on government spending; that is, fiscal policy worked.
Though I despise Krugman, and consider him a nihilistic liar, I do admire his slipperiness as a writer. 
Krugman is a much better writer than Broder—so he doesn’t fall for the trap of saying outright, “War would be good for the American economy”. 
He’s actually much more clever and pernicious about it: Krugman sets up the inference, but never takes the final step to the inevitable conclusion—instead, he invites his readers to take that final step. 
That way, he can claim in a superficially accurate sense that he had nothing to do with promulgating the idea of war as a fiscal stimulus package—while in fact being the godfather of the conceit. 
It’s a bit like a defense lawyer, questioning a rape victim on the stand: “How many sexual partners have you had in the last year, aside from my client?—wait, sorry, the judge won’t allow me to ask you about your past sexual escapades: I withdraw the question.” The lawyer isn’t saying the victim’s a slut—he’s inviting the jury to make the inference, while sliding in the notion that the rape wasn’t a rape, merely consensual sex. 
Or for another example of Krugman’s rhetorical strategy: Go back to the top of this very post, and please re-read the first paragraph that I wrote. I’ll wait. 
Dr. Evil, and his cat.
Notice the Boogie Nights reference? Notice how I mention the totally irrelevant issue of the Hoffman’s character’s homosexual crush on Wahlberg’s character? Totally irrelevant—but it instantly sets up the reader to make the inference that DeLong has a homosexual crush on Krugman. 
In fact, it’s practically the only inference the reader can make—yet I can skate away, and quite accurately claim that I never said DeLong had an unnatural attraction to Krugman. I never even had the intention of making such a claim! How dare you say that I intended to say such a thing! However, if readers infer such a thing on their own, well, that’s their business . . . 
See what I mean by “slippery”? 
That’s the kind of pernicious, despicable bullshit Krugman pulls on his readers on a regular basis: He throws a rock, then hides his hand. He says the fiscal deficit necessary to finance the Second World War was the best thing that ever happened to the American economy—then has his fluffer, Brad DeLong, get all mock-outraged when someone points out that Krugman seems to be suggesting that a big-ass war would be good for the American economy. 

Now, I called Krugman out on his lies about World War II fiscal indebtedness in my post, “Why Paul Krugman Is An Imbecile—or a Fraud” I took apart his “1938 is 2010” post quoted above, showing how Krugman had played fast-and-loose with the data, twisting it very subtly in order to support a conclusion that could not be supported by any other means except deception. 
But then, in my later post, “Why I Despise Krugman”, when I pointed out that Krugman is consistently arguing for war as a means to salvage the U.S. economy, I got an earful from Brad DeLong. (Krugman himself wrote a post in response to me, called “Economics Is Not A Morality Play”—a post of a truly shocking level of arrogance and conceit, not to mention moral torpitude.)
DeLong wrote me an e-mail with the lines (I am here quoting verbatim), “Have you no decency, sir? Have you no decency?” 
Actually, I do: That’s why I’m pointing out the contradiction in DeLong’s various hissy fits. He threw a hissy fit at me, for correctly inferring that Krugman is calling for war to solve America’s fiscal problems. Then he threw another hissy fit at David Broder, whose sin was that he said explicitly what Krugman is too cowardly to say flat out. 

Poor Brad DeLong: The lonely life of a fluffer is filled with such curious contradictions. He has to defend Krugman for advocating war as an economic solution—while castigating Broder for advocating war as an economic solution. 
Poor Brad DeLong: Such is the fate of a man who deliberately decides to be the submissive sidekick to a stronger yet immoral star like Krugman. There’s nothing wrong with being the sidekick—so long as you maintain your integrity. But you can’t maintain your integrity by being the sidekick of a nihilistic liar like Krugman. And the thing is, poor Brad can’t break from Krugman at this point: His entire reputation depends on the K-ster Monster of Princeton Junction. Poor Brad is locked into his fate. 
Poor Brad DeLong: It’s actually not much fun for me to mess around with him—because I know that no one will defend him. Krugman certainly won’t. Guys like Krugman use their fluffers to get them hard—but then pretend they can’t help them when they run into trouble, like poor Brad DeLong has now. 
Poor Brad DeLong: Sad, sad, sad little fluffer. Pump, pump, pumping away. 


  1. That was awesome. I hate those guys. They have absolutely no morals or conscience. The people are merely a means to achieving whatever fucked up end they are seeking.

    So where would Mr. David "Axis of Evil" Frum be categorized in all this? He's the bastard that is now advocating for a war with Iran to 'save the economy.'

  2. Maestro! I love it. I would have never come across this word, "fluffer" if you weren't here to use it. Pun not intended! Only an insider in this industry would know such a word?

    In the final analysis, there is only one Bubble left to blow. Pun intended! No, it's not the U.S.S. QE 2 or 3 or 4. It is War!

    Crumbling empires like the Romans and the Yankees (not to be derogatory but to distinguish Americans living in the U.S. from the rest of the Americans living throughout North and South America) is to go to war.

    911 was part one of the attempt to divert attention from the economic collapse back then and, of course, to inflate the war economy to new heights, and now we are ready to go stratospheric with part two.

    So, let's give credit where credit is due. Thank you, Mr. Broder, Mr. Krugman, and Mr. DeLong for stating or insinuating the oblivious truth (obvious to you and I, but oblivious to the sheeple).

  3. Can you please add a printer friendly button to your site. I like to print it out and read it on the train.

  4. >But guess what? Deficit spending created an economic boom — and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity.

    Actually, it was the technological discoveries made during the war that laid the foundation. Synthesized rubber, Lexan, Jet engines, rockets, nuclear power, on and on.

    What kind of a tool would think blowing a lot of shit up can improve the economy.

  5. Unless you are in the arms trade, War is bad for business especially if one does not keep the territory that was gained. This is a fact that has been known for centuries.

  6. You are being very unfair to fluffers by comparing them to Mr. DeLong.

  7. He does have a pretty mouth.......

  8. This, which went around last week, is likely what inspired Broder:

  9. Stratfor, suggested by an Anonymous above, is to the CIA what DEBKAfile is to Mossad, a kind of a leaky gut of misinformation, disinformation, etc. I believe that Stratfor was started by the Zionist Christian, Joseph Farah, of Worldnetdaily.

  10. FABulous Gonzalo! Loved this article. Boy do you nail down DeLong. All this time I just thought he was the douche applicator to Krugman's vagina.

  11. I don't know who started Stratfor, but why would a pro-Israeli concern want to suggest that a war with Iran is a political inevitability rather than a strategic necessity? Not that any of that matters to the question of why Broder wrote what he did.

  12. Probably the most infamous of Krugman's deceptive suggestions was when he said that the fed should inflate a housing bubble. Oh, that's right, he quoted somebody else saying that the fed should inflate a housing bubble. In his nationally circulated column, with nary a qualifier to hedge his endorsement (and he did insert the quote in the context of an endorsement). How could I infer that he would want to inflate another bubble? Have I no DECENCY?

    Krugman's PR plausible deniability mindset is pretty typical of the short attention span world we live in. His readers eat it up, just look at the comments section of any of his blog posts. It's infuriating, but Krugman is a big name and the generation raised before bloggers is much more concerned with image than content. Plus, Krugman writes in an oblique, technical way when it suits him, allowing his audience to feel smart for reading something too complicated for them to understand while softening them up for the big, juicy, easily-digested lie which is what his posts always amount to.

    He's a major component of TPTB's publicity arm, and so there isn't a corner of space cold enough for his soul.

  13. Except that's not what Krugman was saying at all.

  14. I can't believe no one has yet pointed out the irony of this post, in light of the fact that Delong named his blog page "Grasping Reality with Both Hands". Indeed! You can't make this shit up, man.

  15. The movie "Canadian Bacon" came to mind after I read this piece...Wasn't the point that the President had to get the economy moving again, so he declared War on Canada? Was Krugman the Chief White House economist in the movie?

  16. The US wouldn't be able to go to war the way it did in WWII.

    Since then, the US has become a bully, a coward with big arms and a big mouth, who only go after the small fish, if possible with the help of other bullies, such as the UK...

    A war against Iran wouldn't change anything to the actual situation, except that it would probably contribute to precipitate the US financial collapse.

    A real war, against a real adversary like, say, China, would certainly have different repercussions.

    It would last, it would cull the population and it would destroy major infrastructures which would need to be rebuilt...

    Those who advocate war with Iran certainly know all that. What they probably don't mention is their hope that, should Iran be attacked, its Russian or Chinese allies would come to the rescue, thus giving the conflict a whole different dimension...


  17. Your posts are excellent and very informative . But I can't see wasting your time talking about two dick heads like these. Anything they say about you is just a compliment to your rising status as a writer. Continue to keep us informed to all the shit being hurled at us from Washington, Wall Street and the banksters .

  18. Gonzalo,

    Your previous posts -- at least that I've read -- have been classy and well-considered. In contrast, I'm disappointed to read this column from you.

    There's no reason to insult people the way you just did, to make the kinds of comparisons you just made. There must be another way for you to make your points.


  19. The Broder/Krugman/DeLong brouhaha is just a small taste of the coming attractions (pun intended).

    It is the beginning of the groundwork for the Bankster solution - war. A really big one. And it will have nothing to do with politics. It is all about a big payday for the Banksters.

    Deficits that are higher than the economy can generate taxes to pay back result in national impoverishment. War is the only way to get the populace to voluntarily live in conditions that in normal times would be defined as impoverishment. A false flag event will happen. Hostilities will be staged to drag us into a big war.

    In war, you have impoverishment, but everyone thinks they are enduring it in order to save their way of life. And the Banksters make big bucks as people work for peanuts creating the materiel for war, while willingly living in very austere conditions, and even using their own wealth to buy war bonds to fund the war.

    It remains to be seen if America will wake up, refuse to send its young men to kill other young men, and choose not to participate in the Bankster solution.

  20. Gonzalo Lira,

    Hilarious entry, and I love your instructive example about inference, homosexuality, fluffers, and DeLong. Well scored. This fatuousness and group think certainly helped prompt me to exit the ranks of academia and do my own consulting.

    I took Krugman's inference to be somewhat different in implication, but it arrives at the same conclusion. Here it is: Krugman's thought balloon: "We shouldn't need a war to deficit spend like a war. We should simply choose to lard huge buckets of government stimulus money on the populace in times of peace, but with all the wacky tea partiers and tightwads out there, the only way we'll have sufficient stimulus on a popular and political level is to have a war." (i.e. I'm not advocating war per se, just showing how huge deficit spending seemed to work in a time of war, while I heavily drive the point home that the only way we could get that deficit spending is to engage in a war.)

    What Krugman seems to miss is how big the deficit is at this point in American history and how weak the underlying supporting assets are (or in the case of derivatives, simply fictional/counterfeit). Growth and consumption in its traditional sense cannot work, because people have had flat to declining incomes and jobs have been outsourced (ironically even war jobs) by the millions. What is there to stimulate with spending? What productive capacity will it be applied to? We're out of credit, out of cash, out of work, and mostly out of luck.

    I don't see his actual plan at all. It worked 50 years ago it should work now? It's baffling, and without recourse to present conditions. I don't understand his apparent motives or framework. His reasoning does not seem to pass even basic logic.

  21. What a courageous post! I wish I had the guts to comb porn flicks for a metaphor that I could cast in the teeth of someone who had hurt my feelings.

    I personally disagree rather regularly with Brad DeLong on economic issues. This post has permanently changed my mind about him – from now on, I may see him as wrong on some topics, but he is dramatically ennobled by this attack. From now on, I will try to find value in his posts, even when it is difficult.

    On the logical issue at hand, I find Gonzalo Lira's argument unimpressive. Broder's article does seem to hint at approval of a putative war, whereas my guess is that Krugman might oppose a war on Iran. Certainly the most unforced interpretation of Krugman's quoted statements is simply that Krugman has a lot invested in the idea that the stimulus is too small, and so he is trying to use World War II as an example of how a large stimulus could be construed as helpful. It's completely possible to find this argument unconvincing without assuming that Krugman is advocating war.

    I wonder how Gonzalo Lira felt while writing this article? Satisfied at having sunk a dagger into the heart of an enemy? The same sort of sexualized feeling of superiority that an older boys feels when calling a younger one gay?

    I feel a great deal of pity for Gonzalo Lira – in order to publish an article like this with obvious eagerness, my judgment would first have to be entirely distorted. The most likely way this would happen is if I were plagued by persistent feelings of inferiority.

    But for the readers above the age of seven who wrote and loudly cheered on Gonzalo Lira, I have no pity. Just the same scorn I would have for a group of ninth graders who egg on a fellow student to beat up a seventh grader they think might be gay.

  22. What you did say in this article is that, "homosexual crush" equal "unnatural attraction", or for short, homosexual=unnatural. Interestingly, Hitler thought that homosexuality is unnatural. Sad, sad little guy!


  23. Thank you for teaching me a new word: "Fluffer". Como seria en castellano? Chupa? Lenguaraz?

    What was missing from your entertaining note Gonzalo is your own opinion. Would a good war a la Nietzsche save America? Is Obama hard enough to do what he has to do? Did Chicago slums train him for it?

  24. Let's start with the obvious error. The girl on the roller skates was the fluffer, not Hoffman's character. It may be convenient for your narrative but it's not reality.

    The concentration of wealth destroys democracies. A combination of ending the fraud, the Glass-Steagall Act and the reduction in income inequality due to the very high marginal tax rates for the rich pulled us out the the ditch after the Depression. (Yes, there were other things too, reality is full of complexity). The destruction of the productive capacity of Europe through war was the icing on the cake that made America a superpower (that, and the bomb).

    Krugman is stuck on simplistic answers. The solution below is only part of what needs to be done but is an outline for what *must* be done.

    We can return to being a productive society again if we end the fraud, end the unfair advantage fractional reserve lending gives the primary dealers (end the FED) and turn the creation of credit into a public utility. (Along with a lot of other stuff).

    Someone better start thinking about how the technological revolution is replacing workers. I would love to see you do an article about this. By 2050, it's been estimated that only 50% of today's workers will be needed. We need to think about what that means for society and how we will cope with that inevitable change.

  25. WTF - we are already at war. If you ask the decimated IrAfPaki civilians I think they will agree. And, Delong, Krugman, Broder are not fluffers; their aim isn't to tickle each other, at least not publicly. They are more like what are called 'Teaser Horses' in the thoroughbred breeding business. Teasers are docile male horses, usually old and past prime with undesirable genes, who set up aggressive just off-the-track mares to be bred by the wild testosterone crazed prize stallions whose only job is to deliver the goods, which they do. Handlers use the teasers to see if the mares are ready and receptive to be bred; if not, the mares get vicious and the no-value teasers (instead of the studs who earn $300k per live foal) get savaged and kicked. If the mare is ready, the teaser is whicked away and the hard action commences. These hack pundits are the teasers. They are seeing if we're ready to be bred - do we lift tail and spread 'em, or fight? Never getting any of their own action, teasers like Brad/Paul/Dave help their handlers gauge sentiment to minimize the risk to the elites of kick-back when the citizens are mounted.

  26. Krugman is most likely building up to a massive spending program aimed at climate change mitigation; see Building a Green Economy.

    Since climate change mitigation projects generally yield some sort of long term profit after an initial capital cost this model fits within current economic "theory."

  27. @11.28am -- Exactly. How many simultaneous wars are necessary for this theory?

  28. Raincheck,
    The question is not the number of wars that are necessary. The critical question is the size of the total perceived military threat.

    The total perceived military threat has to be sufficient to support opening plants to manufacture the massive amounts of war materiel necessary to employ large numbers of Americans. The current Iran/Pakistan/Pipeline-istan adventures are small potatoes. Projected defense spending for 2011 is only $721 billion, a small part of the projected $14.6 trillion US GDP.

    You gotta spend way more than is being spent. You gotta create the idea of a huge military threat to support huge new expenditures in plant and equipment - and to convince people to live in austerity, work for peanuts, and spend their own wealth on war bonds.

    Fiat money systems always end either in collapse or war. We are headed for collapse. The chess pieces are being arranged by the Banksters to initiate the war endgame before collapse happens.

    I am praying for collapse.

    K Smith

  29. Love K Smith's statement, "Projected defense spending for 2011 is only $721 billion. . ."

    Remember that this project, published figure is only the official amount, who knows what the black budgets involving drugs and other "activities" entail.

    So, even with this acknowledged $721 billion figure, it is bigger than the entire GDP of what the 17th largest economy accomplished in 2009, i.e., the United States is about to spend more money on widgets and services to kill and maim people than the entire goods and services produced by the nation of Turkey in 2009.

    And by the way, where the hell is the United States getting that $721 billion from???

  30. Ahhh, but Anon@ 2:09 - even if you add in the off-the-books defense spending, the money spent on defense is not nearly enough to create the plant and equipment necessary to manufacture the implements for a really big war.

    The propaganda to portray China as an enemy of the US and to generate public support for a big war has begun. It began about a week ago on October 20 with the upload of this commercial to YouTube.

    The commercial was deemed too controversial to be aired by the major networks. But it was not deemed so by Fox News, Fox Business Channel, CNN, CNBC, and CNN Headline News, where it is being aired.

    Why is it being shown on some, but not on all?

    The answer lies in demographics.

    If it were shown on the major networks, it would be recognized as propaganda for war. They have a very old demographic. Viewers there remember the propaganda for WWII.

    The cable channels have a younger demographic. They are less likely to recognize propaganda when they see it. Those who watch these networks are the movers, shakers, decision makers, and influencers in our culture.

    Guess why it is being aired by news organizations considered to be both liberal and conservative? To begin to demonize the people of China and generate citizen support for war across the political spectrum.

    Unless America wakes up, we are in for a bad, bad time - impoverishment and war.

    K Smith

  31. One reference to "fluffers" would have been more than enough to make the point. Instead it developed into a tirade of abuse.

    It should also have been pointed out that there are many other reasons than simply the direct economic stimulus to justify a war against Iran (assuming you are a capitalist imperialist with absolutely no morals). There's control of the oil; eliminating the threat to oil tanker traffic; the geo-strategic position - akin to moving your queen into the centre of Brzezinski's chessboard; oh, and advancing the equality of women and human rights and democracy and eliminating the WMDs.

  32. Fluffer? For real? This article isn't as funny or insightful as the author seems to believe.

  33. A Nice Song about the fed:

    Elsworth Krugman & the fluffer would love it.

  34. Here is what Mike is talking about on Krugman advocating a housing bubble at November 1, 2010 7:49 PM.

  35. Gonzalo, have you searched for Brad and Paul on yet? One of them guys has even a dedicated blog: Krugman in Wonderland. Anyway, nice piece, some decent style.

  36. Krugman and Broder have another very important reason to advocate for an attack on Iran, namely, helping Israel in its relentless campaign to convince the US public to go for it.

  37. Ha, I've been using the term "fluffers" for our botoxed preeners in the White House. Their sole purpose is to serve the TNC's and make no bones about it. I am forever done with voting and recommend a boycott for any upcoming elections. A vote of `no confidence` will shake things up. After that, take out the real enemy, the Transnational Corporate elitists pigs. BOYCOTT their corporations. Do your research online and find out who is enslaving you.

  38. Am I the only one that realizes that the fat Seymore Hoffman character was not a "fluffer", nor was roller girl, as someone else posted. Hoffmans character had a tech job on the set of some sort.
    I think the bigger insult is directed at Marky Mark as it implies that he is gay and would be kept interested in between shots by a porky gayboy.
    All that being said I do love reading anything that points out that Krugman is a fraud, although
    with all of the homosexual references I'm suprised that the author did not include the name of the homosexual economist that started this whole mess - JMK

  39. Can't believe anybody thinks domestic economic policies brought us out of the war - especially that really bizarre theory by Rob. The facts are: The U.S. was still IN dire condition when the war started. The fact that every other first and second world economy was bombed and burned into gravel and ash, and the U.S. was untouched, is what created the long economic boom. It's really that simple. Apparently krugman got everybody singing along with his dreamy music, though.

    And Rob, how socialist redistribution saves democracry... That is just amazing. Amazing.


Whether you agree with me or not, thank you for your comment.

If you liked what I wrote—or if it at least made you think—don’t be shy about making a payment. The PayPal button is there for your convenience.

If you have a question or a private comment, do feel free to e-mail me at my address