Article Image Powell Gammill
Letters to the Editor • Economy - Economics USA

To Economist Paul Krugman The New York Times

As an economist Mr. Krugman, you need to begin to be intellectually honest with the general public, as the majority of our politicians seem to be struggling with that aspect of their public service. Continuing to support the obvious failed Keynesian policies of the past century is being intellectually dishonest and a multitude of Austrian Free Market advocates has shown you the fallacies in your discourse and beliefs, time and time again. Yet you continue your efforts to deceive the Citizens of this great nation. You are a paid author for the NY Times, so I can only assume the editors and owners are either ignorant of your fallacious positions or are a party to the deception. I believe it is most likely the later from the historical opinions favoring centralized control using Keynesian fascism by the majority of journalists associated with this newspaper.      

If you are not yet convinced of your poor analysis and opinions, we would be glad to openly debate you within the pages of the New York Times, so we can dispel the myths and misrepresentations you continue to promote and support. Perhaps we should start with your opinion of expanding government spending at this time when it obviously needs to be cut.  

Just think Mr. Klugman, since instituting Keynesian Policies of a central bank in 1913, fiat currency in 1933 and the income tax “reportedly” sometime during this period, we have gone from a 5% overall tax rate per Citizen and the largest creditor nation in the world in 1900 to over a 50% overall tax rate per Citizen and the largest “debtor” nation in the world. The once wealthy and abundant middle class has now been taxed and regulated to obscurity with the concentration of wealth now controlled by the highest single digit percentage of society. It is not by accident that this has occurred. The continuous taxation and regulation and the massive redistribution of wealth programs instituted through these policies have kept up in recession, depression and military conflict, one out of every “two” years in the Twentieth Century. This continues with your flawed polices of excessive government spending, expanding budget deficits, boom and bust cycles caused by fractional lending by central banking and a high progressive or graduated income taxing scheme which you always fail to criticize.  

In an interview with Der Spiegel,I think George Soros said it well: ”The politicians have not really tried to fix any crisis; they have so far tried only to buy time. But sometimes, time actually works against you if you refuse to face the relevant issues and explain to the public what is at stake”.  

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. - Thomas Jefferson 

4 Comments in Response to

Comment by H. Skip Robinson
Entered on:

Bakadude, Woops, I made a mistake in that last post. The term "socialist" is really the wrong term to be using when giving a synonym for the term liberal. Liberals are really fascists. They believe that government should use taxation and regulation to "control the means of production. We should actually get rid of term socialism because it is so often misused.  Fidel Castro called himself a socialista, when he is really a communist, but that would really depend, if all business and property is owned by the state.  Whereas socialism can describe a number of different situations and the reasons it is not a good term to use when describing the macroeconomic identity of the entire country. Whereas "Socialized" medicine is a more appropriate use of this term.  

P.S. I will take on any prominent PhD like Krugman but I do not want to waste my time with you because the audience is nonexistent.      

Comment by H. Skip Robinson
Entered on:


How can we have Keynisian Capitalism when our money is not even free market derived. When fascism is used to dominate/control the means of production by the few. That's not capitalism. Your economic foundation appears to formed on  erroneous fundementals probably formed by misleading or misunderstood political terms, as is your obvious misunderstanding of capitalism. This has been a tactic of the various oligarchies through history, that is to mislead. If education passes down these type misunderstandings, then it makes it hard for people to properly communicate.  You my friend have been the victim of this, someone discribed as "NewSpeak". For instance changing the diffinition of liberal.  A classical liberal in 1850 was what we now call a libertarian, and a liberal today in now a socialist.     

Comment by H. Skip Robinson
Entered on:

When individuals are intellectually dishonest I'm going to call them out. Keynesian economics and the level of fascism it induces didn't really come about until the twentieth century, and since it's introduction we have drastically declined, both socially and economically. You are wrong as usual and we have the 225 years of historical evidence to prove it.  Don't get me wrong, we have always had some level of fascism in our society, but when it was minimum during the first 125 years the majority were better off then today, as it is literally ripping our nation apart. If you're a PhD, you went to a shitty college.    

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Don’t argue heads up when your knowledge is short-handed, which makes you feel like you are a fish on dry land.

It is the philosophy not the person of the philosopher that we should attack in the debate fit for intellectuals, not for the emotional. Publishing this crappy waste of ink missed one of these important editorial niceties.

For example, publishing this personal attack shows the biased conclusion of one who is not in the position at all to argue the wherewithal of Economics, especially with the noted economist Paul Krugman.

This is how the published attack of the person looks like: You are a paid author for the NY Times, so I can only assume the editors and owners are either ignorant of your fallacious positions or are a party to the deception. I believe it is most likely the later from the historical opinions favoring centralized control using Keynesian fascism by the majority of journalists associated with this newspaper.    

Aside from this attack being personal, it is also crappy from the Economics point of view. First of all if you are an economist worth his salt, you will know easily like you do the back of your palm that Austrian economic theory or belief in running the economy, has neither been used nor had ever been the reason at any time why this nation had become the wealthiest and the mightiest on the face of the Earth – it was Keynesian Capitalism that ran the national economy based on the fundamental doctrine of Keynesian Economics. Make no mistake about it!

We can of course always challenge Krugman’s view on the pitfalls of Capitalism and/or also question the distortion of the Keynesian free market system where government regulatory intervention becomes necessary to keep the market free from the control of powerful corporate greed [Austrian buffs cannot see or simply ignore this Adam Smith’s theoretical caveat]. But this challenge is not for those pseudo-street economists whose Economics is learned only by ear [no match at all for holders of Ph.Ds in any economic debate like this one], nor for those who can only express emotionally how they feel about the issue/s but cannot transmit wisdom … they can only transmit their anger and frustration, thus this short cut to Ad Hominem – at the same time they wish that they knew how to debate this erudite subject of Economics which I sympathize makes them feel like fish on dry land.