Economists-- Dupes or Part of the Cover-Up?
Surely the smart economists have to know the deeper manufactured roots of the financial crisis, just like smarter politicians/gov't agents have to know how 9/11 and other terror strikes were manufactured.
Someone like Paul Krugman-- a Noble-prize-winning economist and obviously a smart guy. He writes a column for the NYTimes twice a week. Often his columns are quite interesting and insightful.
Yesterday, the NYTimes reported how the insurance/financial company AIG was at the root of the financial crisis, and how much of the financial scamming from AIG originated from a branch of the company based in London. A blockbuster revelation which will be completely ignored, I'm sure, by the criminal mainstream media.
So this morning, does Krugman discuss AIG at all? No! Instead he comes up with an abstruse theory that excess capital from Asian markets was at the root of the financial crisis. Krugman doesn't even bother to assign blame to anyone in particular for shady deals. His new theory doesn't even make much sense as it's difficult to see how real capital is a problem unless someone (i.e. Wall Street bankers, London financiers) mishandles it.
Surely Krugman HAS to know, at some level, the deeper truth-- but here he's helping to cover up the crime.
This is disappointing, but ultimately not surprising for part of the criminal mainstream media.
Other economists that are in the criminal mainstream media are most likely also part of the cover-up. Academic economists I venture to guess are either dupes, too scared to speak out, or do speak out but don't get any attention.
Related article: "The Unfortunate Uselessness of Most 'State of the Art' Academic Monetary Economics". My take is that academics spend too much time on models, and not nearly enough time on politics and deep politics-- and not enough time using FUCKING COMMON SENSE.
Someone like Paul Krugman-- a Noble-prize-winning economist and obviously a smart guy. He writes a column for the NYTimes twice a week. Often his columns are quite interesting and insightful.
Yesterday, the NYTimes reported how the insurance/financial company AIG was at the root of the financial crisis, and how much of the financial scamming from AIG originated from a branch of the company based in London. A blockbuster revelation which will be completely ignored, I'm sure, by the criminal mainstream media.
So this morning, does Krugman discuss AIG at all? No! Instead he comes up with an abstruse theory that excess capital from Asian markets was at the root of the financial crisis. Krugman doesn't even bother to assign blame to anyone in particular for shady deals. His new theory doesn't even make much sense as it's difficult to see how real capital is a problem unless someone (i.e. Wall Street bankers, London financiers) mishandles it.
Surely Krugman HAS to know, at some level, the deeper truth-- but here he's helping to cover up the crime.
This is disappointing, but ultimately not surprising for part of the criminal mainstream media.
Other economists that are in the criminal mainstream media are most likely also part of the cover-up. Academic economists I venture to guess are either dupes, too scared to speak out, or do speak out but don't get any attention.
Related article: "The Unfortunate Uselessness of Most 'State of the Art' Academic Monetary Economics". My take is that academics spend too much time on models, and not nearly enough time on politics and deep politics-- and not enough time using FUCKING COMMON SENSE.
posted by spooked at 9:57 AM
2 Comments:
"Surely Krugman HAS to know, at some level, the deeper truth-- but here he's helping to cover up the crime."
Spooked: are you referring to the crime of censorship, as practiced here on this very popular blog site?
Check your mirror.
When is censorship a crime? Omission (NYT standard practice) and censorship are by no means the same.
The US government dominates the censorship business, like Pentagon approach photos, black boxes, on and on. And a crime in this case.
Post a Comment
<< Home