[PREV - PSYCHO_REGIME] [TOP]
KRUGMAN_BLUES
July 17, 2009
Paul Krugman continues
to struggle with what Lawrence Lessig
I would call one of calls it "corruption".
the central problems
of the age... CORRUPTED_REASONING
How did we slide
this far?
What kind of people
would be willing to
*do* these things?
What are they
really thinking?
"Opinions for Sale":
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/opinions-for-sale/
News stories about think tanks selling their opinions (sometimes
rather blatantly).
"Unpersons":
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/unpersons/
The "mainstream" media manipulating public discourse by
ignoring voices saying the "wrong" thing.
"Secrets of the WSJ":
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/secrets-of-the-wsj/
A survey of crazed propaganda from the
Wall Street Journal followed by what
may be *the* question:
"... what do these people really believe?" I might put it:
"what are they
"I mean, they're not stupid - life would be thinking?"
a lot easier if they were. So they know
they're not telling the truth. But they
obviously believe that their dishonesty
serves a higher truth - one that is, in
effect, told only to Inner Party members,
while the Outer Party makes do with
prolefeed."
"The question is, what is that higher truth?
What do these people really believe in?"
The comments on that story are
worth reading (for once):
There are a few people who
"In the movie 'Thank You for claim that this is all
Smoking', the main character, egocentrism on Krugman's
a lobbyist for the tobacco part, confusing his opinion
industry, calls this sort of for the one truth-- they're
moral (or amoral) view the missing the point
'Yuppie Nuremberg Defense-I (disingenuously?):
have to pay my mortgage.'"
His objection isn't that he
disagrees with them, it's
that they're saying things
they must know are wrong.
Then there are
several comments
from people trying
to smear Krugman
for being associated
with the New York
Times...
"Jack London, in chapter 4 of THE_ROVERS
his 1908 book 'The Iron Heel'
did a better summary of it:
'When they want to do a thing... they must
wait till there arise in their brains,
somehow, a religious, or ethical, or
scientific, or philosophic, concept that
the thing is right. And then they go
ahead and do it, unwitting that one of
the weaknesses of the human mind is that
the wish is parent to the thought. No
matter what they want to do, the sanction
always comes. They are superficial
casuists..., They even see their way to
doing wrong that right may come of
it. One of the pleasant and axiomatic
fictions they have created is that they
are superior to the rest of mankind in
wisdom and efficiency. Therefrom comes
their sanction to manage the bread and
butter of the rest of mankind. They have
even resurrected the theory of the divine
right of kings - commercial kings in
their case.'"
"It is entirely unreasonable to expect of other
people to be rigorous "scientists" about their
beliefs, political or otherwise. It is
unreasonable to expect one's political opponents
to adhere to a standard of rigor that one very
likely could never achieve. Some commentators are
marginally better than others, and that's about
all we can expect. To rail against the hypocrisy
and dishonesty of one's opponents is almost
certainly to be (quite normally, sadly) more than
a bit hypocritical and dishonest oneself."
-- Keith M. Ellis
"I recall an essay in the 80's from Manas
stating that most of us humans choose
loyalty over truth; integrity being a
casualty."
There are two rough explanations:
delusion or dishonesty.
A few point out that
belief can warp perception.
Many argue that they're just
in it for the money-- And many of those
invoke "class war".
This is a pretty common theory
of human behavior, but:
(a) It's not so easy to establish
(we have no mind-reading aparatus)
(b) it needs to be worked out in more detail:
They don't care if they destroy
the country for short term gain?
or
Perhaps Krugman gives
They don't believe them more credit for
they're actually influence than they
destroying the country? feel... "no one's
going to take us
*seriously*, we're
only the Wall Street
Journal!"
One fellow argues in favor of
what you might call the
conspiracy-in-all-but-name,
referring to a number of works:
John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
Russ Baker's thoroughly researched book "Family of Secrets"
Robert Caro's "Path to Power" (LBJ biograpy)
Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets" (Viet Nam War etc)
Jon Ronson's "The Men Who Stare at Goats"
Kevin Phillip's "American Dynasty"
Monica Langeley's "Tearing Down the Walls"
--------
[NEXT - THE_BORG]