What I'm actually writing about is his column, Mugged by the Debt Moralists. Not only is it conspicuous in its lack of inconvenient truths (such as why vast government spending evokes fears of socialism), but Krugman also argues against a group he calls "the moralists."
O Nobel Laureate, what exactly is the definition of a moralist? Is it, "one who has morals?" No, let's be fair, it's probably "one who values morals over all else, including economics."
If that is indeed your definition, Mr Krugman, I will wear that title as an honor. And I would caution you of the dangers of having morals take a second seat in the "conscience of a liberal."
I am reminded of Romans 1:21-23 warning us about rejecting God's moral principles in favor of our own "wisdom",
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
And with that I shall end.
6 comments:
That would be an awesome band name.
Good post.
"I'm Krugman and morals are stoo-pid."
A youtube video, please.
Not the most enlightening article, I must say. Yes, Tea Partiers can be obnoxious. Yes, economics is complicated, and more spending may help. And of course, the bit that's gotten your attention-- his quirky definition of moralists.
I think "one who values morals over all else, including economics" is probably a fair description of what Krugman calls a "moralist," but don't stop there-- you also have to define "morals".
Moralist is a misnomer here. I don't think he is talking about good morals being against economic improvement. Rather, he talks about the "evil" of debt and the "sin" of debtors-- basically, these "moralists" he describes hold fiscal responsibility to be a higher moral imperative than loving and forgiving our neighbors.
Such moralists do not sacrifice morals for economic improvement, but at the same time their means do not justify their ends.
Ah, I see. So it's not so much morals he's ranting about but people who make "economics morals." That's a bit more reasonable.
But I'm still a moralist even under the new definition! Not all debt is evil, but I'm fine calling irresponsible debt evil. And even if you don't call it evil, there's still something to be said for letting people face the consequences of their actions. One doesn't learn so well otherwise.
I do agree that people must face the consequences of their actions, so they can learn from their mistakes. But I also know that while people did make poor choices in home loans and mortgages, banks and lenders were also complicit in promoting and providing those bad loans (many homeowners did not even understand the conditions of the loan they were given, and would have been fine with a regular loan). Furthermore, we are in a big economic mess that is affecting everyone, even those who did not make any bad economic choices, and often the most "moral" economic policies will hurt many more people than just those who took out bad loans. I suppose, I just think the situation is more complicated than that "moral" line of thinking will allow for right now.
Yes, you're right, it's a complicated issue. Which is why I was only arguing against his "moralist" thing and not the whole let-people-off-the-hook thing.
What I think you and I can both agree on, though, is how backwards it is that the biggest culprits--indeed the banks--are the ones getting off the hook the _most_. So the (morally) bankrupt banks get huge bailouts, the heedless debtors get leniency, and the responsible citizens get a crap economy.
Yes, I know why the gov't did it, but I don't think it bodes well for our society long-term. And it's just not fair. :(
Post a Comment