The New York Times and Willful Blindness
In an editorial piece today, the New York Times warns readers about getting into too much of a tizzy about deficits.
The Obama administration has warned that the new austerity drive could undercut economic recovery and has pressed the case that stronger countries, such as Germany, should not slam on the brakes. In a letter to G-20 colleagues, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that budget cutting won’t work “unless we are able to strengthen confidence in the global recovery.”
What the New York Times needs to get is that Keynsian economics has failed. There is no recovery. The so-called stimulus has done nothing but prolong and deepen the economic pain our modern economy is only beginning to realize. We're replacing demand with debt. Debt that will have to be repaid. Debt that caused the problem in the first place. You can't solve a problem caused by debt with more debt.
The longer we cling to this pipe dream of recovery and the efficacy of stimulus, the longer and deeper this crisis will be. The New York Times is willfully blind to economic reality. They show their hand when they state, "nearly 1 in 10 are out of work," using the rosiest unemployment statistic around, which ignores those who have fallen off the unemployment rolls, stopped looking for work or accepted part time work in lieu of badly needed full time work.
The New York Times wants us to believe that it will all be better if we just stick to the plan. Follow their advice to all of our peril.
Print This Post
Pages
Contributors
Powered by Authors WidgetRecent Posts
- Predicting the Future
- Keeping Up the Illusion
- Following the Advice of the Gallactically Stupid
- Americano Moderno Fascismo
- Stranger than Fiction
Archives
Categories
- Christianity
- Culture & Arts
- Current Events
- Daily Reading
- Economics
- European Union
- Media
- Poetry
- Police Abuse
- Politics
- Society
- Sports
- Uncategorized
- United States
Blogroll
Tools
RGD
- New York Fed Sees New Central Bank Role in Fighting Asset Bubbles Carlton Smith
- ADP National Jobs Report for March 2010 Carlton Smith
- February Flat for Income and Outlays Carlton Smith
- Unemployment and GDP Carlton Smith
- 4 Week Treasury Bills Carlton Smith
T21
- Ode to an S-Hook Taylor Graham
- Bolero Elena Malec
- Clouds Liu Hong-ping
- Neighborhood Walk John Grey
- Camera Obscura Tony Renner
Poetry
- Serenity Carlton Lloyd Smith
- The Morning Star Carlton Lloyd Smith
- American Dream Carlton Lloyd Smith
- Black Sheep Carlton Lloyd Smith
- Tijuana Carlton Lloyd Smith
June 11th, 2010 - 11:47
Carl,
It should be no secret that the New York Times “is willfully blind to economic reality”. The truth is that they don’t CARE about that reality. Their views are driven by a philosophical model that (at it’s root) requires the destruction of existing economic frameworks. One of the ultimate goals of anyone who calls themselves any of the variety of “liberal, progressive, socialist, communist” is redistribution of wealth. For many of them, this is because they don’t understand what wealth is or how it is created, they think of it as some type of static “pie” that some people are not getting their fair share of.
For others redistribution is just one method of attaining the ultimate goal of this philosophical system. Massive debt and economic depression are key elements in their attempts to convince everyone that redistribution is a necessary (and good) goal. Look at prior periods of economic recession/depression and this dynamic can be seen in action. Their goals are not to end the problem, but to use it as an excuse to further encroach upon the economic freedoms that allow individuals to create wealth. The debt will ensure that, when the economic swing turns back to the positive, there is still justification for continuing and expanding their redistributive policies. But always remember, this is just the economic component of this philosophical belief system.
Read Marx, Kant and Hegel or the NYT Editorial page to understand some of the other aspects. To recognize the probable outcomes if they are successful, if we let them “stick to the plan”, take a close look at the history of the first 5 decades of the 20th century.
June 11th, 2010 - 12:27
True enough, Wayne. I am all too ready to believe that even NYT editorialists would rather see an end to this than wish to deepen it to further their goals.
In truth, I go back and forth between to poles. On one hand, I want to believe that people who hold disparate opinions in regard to economics and other aspects of politics, ultimately strive for the same thing. The best possible life for everyone. On the other hand, I remember that ugly drive for power and control that consume so many of us and through this prism my view of their intentions becomes cynical.
You and I both know that no one person can say what is best for any other person. The aim of freedom is to allow the individual to define that for himself, and set about in whatever peaceable fashion he may to achieve what he wishes. He may not always succeed, but at least he is free to pursue it. Our philosophical opponents, on the other hand, believe that they know what all people desire, and believe in the possibility that this may be achieved by the power of government.
So, you’ve caught me on one end of my spectrum, assuming that the editors of the NYT genuinely hope to achieve what is best for the citizens of this country.
Perhaps, though, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. They do genuinely hope to achieve what is best for the citizens of this country. And they hope to achieve it by force. Their aim is to use the condition of the time to realize the necessary power to provide what is best. Their folly is in assuming that they know what it is.