printOr as I dubbed the scolded Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück: “The German who’s really an Austrian … economist.”
Reports Spiegel Online:
“Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has blasted Germany’s Peer Steinbrück for his resistance to economic stimulus spending. Now the ‘boneheaded,’ ‘know-nothing’ finance minister has sent Krugman an invitation to come to Berlin to discuss their differences.”
“Krugman has repeatedly emphasized his belief that deficit spending is among the few bulwarks against a reprise of the Great Depression and he hasn’t shied from pillorying those with a cooler attitude towards stimulus.”
Steinbrück has been among his favorite targets. Krugman has blasted Steinbrück, who took office hoping to balance the German budget and together with Chancellor Angela Merkel has withheld his support for further European or national stimulus packages, for his “know-nothing diatribes” and ” boneheadedness.” Krugman’s most painful insult of all may have been his suggestion that the criticisms of “crass Keynesianism” offered by Steinbrück, a member of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party, most closely resemble the thinking of America’s Republican Party.
Why the invite? Where’s Steinbrück’s Tutonic spirit? And what arrogance Krugman evinces. Even if his “crass Keynesianism” was correct, which it isn’t (neither is Keynesiansim merely “crass”; it’s criminal)–what about respecting the sovereignty of strangers? In their misguided arrogance, Dems and Republicans are of a piece.
What’s more, neither foolish faction has grasped that America is no longer a super power, able to lord it over the rest.
It is ironic how a “socialist” German economist working for an East German trained physicist turned Chancellor and the Czechs – people who were closer to the ultimate fates of socialism, inflation etc – are more prudent than the so called “Wall Street Capitalists” like Summers, Geithner, Rubin, and Krugman. If Germany really wanted to do us a favor, they would boot the 56,200 Americans stationed in Germany the hell out – Hitler is dead and maintaining an (unproductive and parasitical) empire via inflation is helping to sink the entire world. We also have 9700 troops in Italy protecting us from Benito Mussolini and 33,132 protecting us from Hideki Tojo. But then to a Keynesian – any deficit spending, no matter how wasteful – is really a blessing! Maybe we can build up some infrastructure in Antarctica – a new Chrysler plant perhaps. (P.S. one can ask the Germans about the government sponsored Trabant automobiles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant)
Well said. There’s no reason to have any troops overseas that I can see.
Soldiers abroad can be brought home and offered immediate discharge, bases and weapons stockpiles sold to local governments at cut-rate, and the provinces themselves asked to kindly see to their own defenses. And somehow the world will keep turning.
Those troops abroad remind me of that old saying about a brontosaurus dying before its brain realizes it. [Great image] Now, we know this crisis just might be the ‘Big One’, certainly not in the ‘Mad Max’ sense, but maybe a la Soviet Union. I’d like to read discussions about what we can do on the individual, or maybe local, level to help weather the storm. And please, let’s stay off the usual ‘stockpiling of ammo and canned food’ thread.
“Maybe we can build up some infrastructure in Antarctica – a new Chrysler plant perhaps”
Priceless !!!!!!!!
The article about economics has morphed into overseas military service. Horay or is it horaw now. How about NATO, Military in the middle East, Ron Paul said we had troops in 160 countries beside our own. Get them home. I have two fears, one is that we will become like Russia (Backward Stasis, militarily strong but economically weak) or the Joint chiefs will realize that we have a worthless corrupt government, and they (Joint chiefs) have a worldwide military establishment that also has bases in almost every state in the union. Many state governors would support the military government more than they do Washington. Argentina, on a large scale. To be honest, they wouldn’t do a worst job than the present administration. Just a thought, dream, or nightmare, whatever.
[One point: You can’t stay militarily strong for long while being broke. Empires crumble b/c of debt. Not to mention lack of borders.]
To Mssrs Pauli and Van Wijk: While I can understand your taking a legitimate position disagreeing with the long-term presence of US troops on foreign soil, the fact of the matter is that the German, Italian, British, Japanese, and South Korean Governments have chosen NOT to kick us out up until this point. As to Mr Pauli’s specious straw man assertion that our troops in Japan are there to protect us from Hideki Tojo (even granting reasonable latitude for obviously intended sarcasm), as one who served in Japan during the Reagan era, I can assure you that both we and our gracious Japanese hosts (who even went so far as to build us brand new on-base military family housing) were — rightly or wrongly — far more concerned with both the Soviets and what you perhaps regard as a harmless libertarian regime based in Pyongyang. And please man up: Each of you would far prefer living in South Korea to the North: A difference only made possible by the eeeeeeeevil American empire and its “occupying forces.”
A reply only to answer the point brought up in my earlier comment and hopefully can be deleted anytime thereafter. Julius crossed the Rubicon to become the ruler of Rome, but most coups are because the military sees the country going bankrupt, because of the poor civilian government. Many chose to take power in order to reform the government and save it. Our Country is savable at this time, someone, if they had the power could conceivably. Stop many of the out of control Federal programs, stop the international welfare system that costs us so much. Stop the over regulation of business while granting more economic freedom and work with the governors of the states to maintain order. Thereby restoring a stable creditable country. Nations like China, if reassured that stabilizing our own country was the goal, would, in most cases, applaud the move. They know Military leaders hate war more than civilians do. The overseas bases would be a deterrent to other nations interference only and the threat to overcome the forces loyal to the civilian government. The nightmare would be if the joint chiefs decided to go the world domination route or they wait too long and try to save the country after it’s already in file thirteen. It’s a big subject, the making of a book if we judge how the military can take over, or what they would do in the long run. I only meant to mention the potential possibility in my first comment.
The fact that foreign governments have not asked our forces to leave up to this point is not relevant to this discussion. They benefit from our presence when foreign bases are leased by the U.S. government and when soldiers put their wages (provided by our taxes) into local economies. Our own best interests don’t seem to come into the equation for you. Please inform us of exactly what the United States stands to gain from hundreds of thousands of soldiers abroad whose apparent mission is to make sure that Japan and Germany don’t float away.
Your scenario in Korea is also irrelevant. Let’s say that South Korea is in imminent danger of being conquered by North Korea. Why should we be expected to keep one foreign nation from invading another? Why should we spend blood and treasure to maintain 1st World living conditions in South Korea? By your logic, we should send troops to every spot in the world where there is potential bloodshed and unpleasantness.
Lastly, I served in the Iraq theater, a shooting war. I didn’t sit around wondering if maybe Iraq was going to attack, all the while enjoying all the pleasures of garrison life. Been there; done that.