The Wingnut Argument for Stupid Economists
pic credit: The Humble Libertarian
Ever notice how "experts" seem to insist that laypeople can't possibly understand the excessively complicated esoterica of economics? That's not a coincidence. Inflation (an insidious, hidden tax on every dollar in our wallets) wouldn't be possible if everyday Joe and his four ugly blond kids had even a remedial understanding of how money works and where it comes from. The Fed would have been burned down 50 years ago were regular schmoes like you and I to truly understand what goes on there and why they do it. Lucky for them, most of us are blissfully unaware, our noses turned up at the stench of economics and all its complications.
The ironic part is that for all its models and formulas and rules, economics is a crude study of humans and what we do with what we have. How complicated can that be?
Only as complicated as they want it to be.
Here's a little laugh from David Kramer via Lew Rockwell on the all-too-not-at-all-complicated science of economics:
(N)ational (P)ropaganda for (R)ockefeller
Or is it (N)ational (P)ropaganda for (R)othschild? Or both? (I vote for both.) Jim Grant was on NPR this morning extolling the virtues of the gold standard. Of course a real “economist” that NPR found under a rock (which is actually where all non-Austrian “economists” reside) said that no economist would support such an anachronistic concept. After all, it was the gold standard that “caused” the Great Depression. Had the U.S. been on a gold standard now, we could never have gotten out of our recent financial crisis. (You know—the recent financial crisis that we really are not out of and that was caused because we are not on the gold standard.)
Professor of “Economics” Randall Parker at East Carolina University:
“[the gold standard]..is a pernicious anachronism that should be kept in the history books. And to think that modern people today want to speak about its resurrection should absolutely horrify and terrify anyone who understands economics even a little bit.”
Parker is almost correct. Anyone, such as Parker, who understands economics only a little bit—if at all—would never get a job teaching his Bankster form of “economics” if he promoted a financial system in which David Rockefeller and Evelyn de Rothschild actually had to work for a living like the rest of us, instead of having the government-backed privilege of adding to their banks’ accounts simply by typing in a number followed by some zeros into the computers at their banks’ headquarters. (Or is that strenuous workload handled at the “Federal” Reserve itself for Dave and Ev?)
Grant knows he doesn't have tenure at the Zimbabwe Ben School of Economics and, thankfully, he's OK with that. "The argument I'm making is in fact the wingnut argument," he told NPR, "Every self-respecting tenured faculty member in economics this country, almost without exception, would laugh it out of court."
Right. Because a lot of those guys may have never had the chance to finance their educations and textbook writing careers were it not for the seemingly infinite potential to manufacture money out of nothing. And as Kramer points out above, no economist, bootleg or otherwise, would be allowed to teach in our hallowed educational institutions were they to evangelize such a wingnut concept as money that is finite and limited by the supply of whatever backs it, be that gold or beans or widgets.
Want to see some real wingnuts? Check out the comments on the Planet Money story, including the guy who claims Wall Street funds "50 cent" bloggers to influence popular sentiment one way or another so they can clean up on the resulting volatility, supposedly backed by those darn Koch Brothers. Seriously? This isn't wingnut territory, it's the full-on Republic of Nutjobs.
Anyway, are we still paying attention, children? It's all quite simple, surely you can keep up.