ECONOMICS AND DISCIPLINARY IMMORALITY (profound) In Response to Peter Boettke on

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/opinion/paul-krugman-how-to-get-economic-policy-wrong.htmlKRUGMAN, ECONOMICS AND DISCIPLINARY IMMORALITY

(profound)

In Response to Peter Boettke on Krugman

https://www.facebook.com/peter.boettke/posts/10154638641450389

Krugman is wrong, and his narrative is wrong, because he is an immoral man. And as an immoral man he cannot grasp that men act morally, and therefore that economics cannot ignore morality as a causal property of human action.

It is not the providence of economists to impose immorality on the world. But this is Krugman’s self-appointed position. Where most of us would make moral statements he simply substitutes accusations of stupidity or ignorance whenever morality interferes with temporary economic efficiency. He not only ignores morality, he crusades against morality. But why?

Krugman is perhaps the best practitioner today of the Culture of Critique. And our failure to understand that this is his technique, is why so few people grasp that his systemic immorality, no different from say, Freud, Rothbard or Adorno, is for the purpose of advancing the fallacy that economics creates peaceful cooperation rather than has evolved to be merely warfare by mutually constructed means, rather than warfare by mutually destructive means. That we compete for our famly and tribe by means of production rather than destruction does not alter the fact hat we are competing for our family and tribe – and if we do not compete for our family and tribe, then evolution will punish us. And evolution is punishing anglo-europeans at present precisely for that failure.

The anglo enlightenment fallacies of universalism (restated christianity), when combined with the cosmopolitan enlightenment fallacies (make the world safe for judaism’s separatism) allow us to imagine and perpetuate the pretense of universalism.

However, the rest of the world practices not universalism but tribalism, nationalism, or cultism, and the only reason we have been able to fool ourselves into the fallacy of universalism is the anglo superiority in arms, and the conquest of the germanic civilization by the anglo.

During the run-up to the crisis and for two years after, I systematically wrote responses to Krugman that stated that his ideas could not ever be accomplished because a democratic people would not tolerate immorality from their rulers, and a despot would not ever practice that immorality because it would weaken his power. There are no conditions under which any but an anglo-educated anglo-indoctrinated, enlightenment-fallacy individual would think otherwise. With the decline of the anglo-american empire has arrived, and will continue, the decline of the fallacy, if not religion, of anglo-american universalism, and the cosmopolitan fallacy of open borders, free trade, and economics as the justificationary basis of universalist religion.

Krugman is wrong because he is non-predictive. 20th century Economics is not predictive because it is IMMORAL in that it does not incorporate morality or family. In fact just the opposite. Taken to most efficient levels, the family and morality would be destroyed and largely have been.

This is a devastating criticism of economics as a profession. In particular, because there reason that contemporary macro economics is explicative but non-predictive of political action, is in no small part, not because economists are ignored, or because politicians do not understand the ideas and recommendations of economists, but because politicians understand that the public is a MORAL body, and must be, and always will be.

Germans will not morally accept italian and greek corruption and laziness, and white americans will not tolerate redistribution to impulsive people of color – because they see the other’s behavior as immoral. The more conservative they are (and conservatism is a genetic bias, just like progressivism) the more tribally they will act to advance their kin.

Until economics incorporates these fundamental realities of human behavior it will remain NON-CORRESPONDENT with demonstrated human action, and therefore unscientific, and ideologically biased.

While I am very close to finishing the work of correcting libertarianism (liberalism), restating it analytically, and restoring it to its aristocratic egalitarian ethos, and laundering it of the enlightenment fallacies of universalism, equality of ability and interests, I hope to live long enough to put morality back into economics – which as practiced, and as advocated by Krugman (and Delong et al).

Economics is merely warfare while producing instead of destroying. It is not a vehicle for christian universalism. And the world is returning to that natural order now that the anglo advantage in cultural warfare, economic warfare and military warfare, wanes.

Man acts tribally and must act tribally, because those groups that do not act tribally are have been, and will be, eradicated by those groups that act tribally.

This is a damning criticism of the field, and Krugman is a justifiably damned advocate of immorality. An advocate I hope some day is as justifiably reviled as every other practitioner of pseudoscience and obscurantism for immoral purposes.

This may seem a radical position, but as Hayek advised and I have spent my life attempting to understand the reasons for, the twentieth century will be remembered as an era of re-emergent mysticism in the form of fallacious universalist beliefs justified by pseudoscience, perpetuated by correlations rather than causations.

Which is the underlying problem of economics that Mises intuited but could not solve – because he was himself a victim of cosmopolitan fallacies. He sought to justify universalism, but created his own pseudoscientific verbalism like the other cosmopolitans.

Economics will not be a science until it is causal, and it cannot be causal if it is immoral. And universalism is immoral because it is suicidal.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine