As many of you are aware, I am against any show of professionalism towards mainstream religious mystics. Thus, I am prone to demonstrating my resolve, not only through the use of sarcasm, humour and invective, but also by poking fun at Paul Krugman’s last name. Now, some might find that sort of ad hominem to be childish and stupid. I find it rather soothing, to be honest. Doing so helps to show my utter disregard for Krugman in front of his loyal neo-liberal flock… Sorry, I meant to say flock of “New Democrats”, who believe Krugman to be the lord high almighty of economics: A superior human being that floats above the day to day fray of the common man; a man whose intellect is not subject to question; a genius so lofty that he spits diamonds and shits Italian marble. Unbeknownst to his loyal neo-liberal flock… Sorry, did I say that again? Excuse me: loyal flock of “New Democrats” who are captivated by his politics, Krugman is an economic illiterate and if there’s to be any progress, actual progressives need to stop listening to him. Krugman might have a good political message, but on the macroeconomics front, he’s a charlatan.
Now, professionals – let’s be frank. We who advocate macroeconomic reality either shake our heads or roll our eyes frequently, but one thing is for certain – we do laugh uncontrollably at quite a bit of mainstream theory. In private, you know that we do. To us, mainstream economics, at times, is stand-up comedy. Be honest now! Which of us hasn’t sprayed our monitors with a refreshing drink whilst reading Christopher Phelan’s fantasy epic, “Should We Worry About Excess Reserves?” Remember that one? Comedy gold! Which of us hasn’t, at least once, laughed so hard that we nearly wet ourselves whilst reading Paul Krugman’s column? There’s simply no reason to laugh in private and then treat these mainstream snake oil salesmen with deference and professionalism in public. That’s two-faced; that’s disingenuous, that’s not who we are, and it does a great disservice to the public and to the progressive cause. Fear of the public not taking us seriously is simply no excuse – Look at Jon Stewart! He’s quite influential and has an enormous following. He’s made a career out of making fun of and utterly humiliating influential figures. Are we to believe that if we do the same to the likes of Krugman, the public will shun us? Perish the thought – not going to happen. I submit to you that the exact opposite will happen.
If you are going to treat these bullshit artists as people deserving of professionalism, then you are submitting to the likes of Simon Wren-Lewis and their demands for deference because they are “the Orthodoxy”. Orthodoxy is not science, nor is it honest. It’s a sham. We know this already. We should treat it as a sham. These demands for professionalism from the mainstream are nothing more than a vaccine to inoculate themselves from criticism. They intentionally create rules that put those of us in the heterodox “crowd” down and keep us down, protecting their ivory towers which are merely houses of cards. There’s simply no possible way that any heterodox argument, no matter how valid, will ever cause them to admit that we are right and they are wrong. We can debate until we are blue in the face, but nothing we say or submit, including observational evidence, will change them. They are dead set on bullshittery to protect their positions of influence and their incomes – period. If we allow orthodoxy to dictate the rules for proper decorum, especially concerning how they should be treated publicly, then we will never get anywhere. They will maintain their positions of influence and we will sit there spinning our wheels.
Look, Paul Reubens is “Pee Wee Herman”, right? So, Paul Krugman could just as easily be referred to as “Pee Wee Krugman” in public, yes? And so, there it is. If we’re going to be honest, we need to just throw it out there and let the public in on the fun. After 40 years of neo-liberalism, I think everyone deserves a good laugh. Again, you’re not going to convert Paul Krugman. That’s obvious. Thus, there is nothing to lose. Running a smear campaign against Bernie Sanders wasn’t beneath Paul. Why should humiliating him publicly be beneath us? We certainly cannot knock him off his deficit dove roost at the New York Times using gentle criticism and professionalism. We’ve done it for years and he’s still chirping and he’s still bombarding the nation with bird droppings. You have to knock him off the perch and you do that with sarcasm, humiliation, invective and some ordinary household bleach (to clean up the droppings).
Fig. 1 Krugholio
There. I said it. It’s funny and you know it.