84 votes

A Mysterious and Beautiful Woman Confronts Paul Krugman about Inflation

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Krugman is certifiably evil

He had to spin his way out of that one by BSing the whole "who has the burden of responsibility here" issue, while completely ignoring the very important point brought up by the lady, namely: isn't this about savers vs. debtors? Isn't this about the prudent vs. the profligate? To answer Krugman succinctly: Yes, workers (of which a large number of them happen to be debtors unsurprisingly) are responsible for the crisis MORESO than savers who had the prudence to not act as speculators with borrowed money. The lady's right. Savers will pay the price and suffer the burden of "forgiving" profligacy from all of the opportunists and speculators (on both ends), with lowered purchasing power of their currency. It is theft, and Krugman is showing his twisted amoral side sinisterly and hypocritically with feigned concern for "the little guy". The guy is morally bankrupt. Pun intended.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself." - Thomas Jefferson

He keeps looking up and

and to the left. Kruger face is full of s#!t and he knows it. Rofl. Pathetic. And god bless Spanish women.

Honestly, it sounds like he

Honestly, it sounds like he is tap dancing around the question to provide an answer that facilitates his world view. In other words, he very obviously is just being intellectually dishonest.

"As the circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it." - Albert Einstein
"Now, more than ever, the choice between Obama and Romney will be which one do you want to ruin your country?" ~ Wead

If you voted for mainstream

If you voted for mainstream Democrats or mainstream Republicans then you *are* responsible for the current fiscal crisis in the United States. You voted for politicians who promised you free stuff (or "costless" wars) and who didn't want to raise taxes enough to pay for it (which would have made them unpopular). I don't know the politics in Spain but I assume a similar situation holds there.

Maybe he is saying

Inflation is just "modest" theft if it is done in small increments.
And.. it's just a small amount of theft (or crime) if it is spread over time to where it is not so noticeable to those being fleeced.


Reminds me of the scheme in the movie "Office Space". "just fractions of a cent..."


Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

Well the deal shoud be

honest weights and measures, for all countries.

I want a promise

There is no promise of a fixed value, therefore they can defraud us. I think he helps our cause with every breath he takes.

I just love the glassy-eyed

I just love the glassy-eyed look on his face, ha-ha!

krugman never answered the question

He justified inflation but never answered the question of whether it is theft.

He did answer the question.

He said it is not theft because there is no promise on the face of the FRN that it will maintain its value. In other words caveat emptor notwithstanding we have no choice but to use the counterfeit notes issued by our central banks.

I have never heard this argument before so Krugman must have come up with it after some deep deliberation having been faced with the question several times.

It is however not true that there is no promise that the currency will maintain its value. That was indeed part of the original contract when there was still a link to gold and even now it is stated in the terms of the mandate the Fed has to maintain stable prices and low unemployment. Stable prices means maintenance of the purchasing power of the FRN to my way of thinking. Of course that is a patently ridiculous objective given the nature of the system and simply an indication of how much these people have lost touch with reality.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

reedr3v's picture

And he falsely presumed that we must choose

between inflation theft and employment. But if the dollar were not unreliable and continually devalued, entrepreneurs would be far more confident in expanding businesses and hiring.

The rhetoric of Krugienomics

peppered with its forked tongue BS is becoming less educational by the minute.Great video post!
Not to get confused,that was the truthful roundabout answer of the New York Times columnist P.Krugman, not the 2008 Nobel prize award winner in Economics Paul Krugman.

I guess Paul Krugman still

I guess Paul Krugman still has not read "Economics in One Lesson" yet.

Krugman says we're wrong because...

We've been talking about inflation and in the last four years we've been wrong consistently. That the price of goods hasn't gone up. So that inflation isn't an issue. I recently watched a video debate where that is essentially what he thinks.

As Someone Else Here Brilliantly Pointed Out

It's like a 400 lb. man who doesn't exercise saying, "Heart attack? What heart attack? All the evidence says you're wrong about this alleged heart attack. How can you hold this view in the teeth of such clear evidence that it's wrong?"

And as someone else wisely pointed out, what he calls "mild inflation" is a mirage. A 10% increase in the price of food and gasoline while technology/computer prices go down 10% means inflation may be only 3% when aggregated. But the squeeze on the wallet is much more than 3% because the prices of the necessities are inflated much more greatly.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Let me get this straight, Professor Krugman...

The deliberate and completely foreseeable devaluation of a currency which diminishes the purchasing power of the nation's occupants who use that said currency, as a consequence of Fractional Reserved Banking, Usury, counterfeiting or whatever you wish to call it... is not considered theft?

You claim that these people are forced to pay this debt which was accumulated through no fault of their own, but in the same breath, advocate that the central banks should continue to do the same thing that plunged these people into this crisis to begin with, as a solution to solving it...

And the bloke wins a nobel prize for it...

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." - Thomas Paine

(╮°-°)╮┳━┳ (╯°□°)╯┻━┻ "RON PAUL 2012 DAMNIT!"

Nobel Prize

Those prizes are given out for political purposes, not for any true meritorious achievements or character.


Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

it's not considered theft

it's not considered theft because you are not stealing from HIM. if you pay for goods and services with gold, sivler, gems, diamonds, etc., then that is competition and that is a sin to HIM. But so far, it is not stealing.



Im shocked he is taking questions! He hates debate, that's why he walked out on Ron Paul. lol

Redistribution is OK with Krugman

That's what he is saying...

I get it, yes, the unemployed very often have been victims. But you don't correct a wrong with a wrong.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

If Krugman looked as evil as Bernanke,

maybe more of the public would hold him accountable. He has that aura of innocence about him that probably fools a lot of people.


this guy gets dumber every time I hear him speak....the camera cut to him while she was speaking...he rolls his eyes...And what "deal" was made wherein I agreed to assume debt payments ( the reduce in the power of my printed money is basically a hidden tax) to bail out anyone? Its people like this Krugman guy that perpetuate the lies and dig the hole deeper. All in the name of saving face.


He was rolling his eyes looking for an answer.

He was like a deer caught in the headlights. He looked up into his head but there was nothing there so he looked to the side to see if he could crib from the guy next to him but no there was no-one there so he looked down to his belly and he remembered what he had dreamt the previous night after his heavy dinner. That was the answer he gave and why it didn't make any sense.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

He blames capitalism

We know that is not what it is.

Very good post! Thank you.

Did you see?

Did you see Krugman's eyes roll back in his head when she said "Theft"? Yes Paul K. that was some good ol-fashioned, International style chin music from Ron P. hahahaha

How stupid are people that Krugman gets a seat at the economic table to discuss anything? I could almost understand if his presentation and polish made you want to believe him but he's a freaking weasel.

Wait a minute. I never agreed

Wait a minute. I never agreed to this system where my labor wouldn't hold value. I work for notes that are forced on to me, and according to Krugman that unit isn't bound to hold value?

"The economy's not a class you can master in college. To think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge."

Yeah, yeah, I know...

...NOT funny. But God help me... I couldn't help but think of this South Park clip, when I saw Krugman hear the word "theft":

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Krugman's answer

"if it's theft then anything unexpected is theft"

It's not "unexpected" it's mathematically certain that when you inflate the money supply faster than the population increase the value of each individual USD or whatever is reduced. This slow erosion of value is percentage-wise much harder on the 'little people" who are living paycheck to paycheck.

When the money supply is radically inflated yet the money remains as 1's and 0's in bank's computer balance sheets then the effect is delayed and remains partially hidden. When the supply of money in circulation is inadequate then people suffer as well. When the velocity of money slows then the entire economy suffers. But the real sin is usury - charging interest on loans while not creating the corresponding new money to allow for the future debts + interest creates a mathematically certain default for the unfortunate who are left without a seat when the music stops.

The Faults of Fractional-Reserve Banking

The Fight Against Usury

National Inflation Association - charts

Not a theft?

Help me understand this: Let's say that, today, a (very nice) new suit is worth $1400 (that's US dollars). If I earned the $1400 in exchange for my time/labor but chose to hold on to the paper money for a couple of months before purchasing the new suite and, unfortunately, during that time, the Federal Reserve Bank printed a few billion dollars and passed it out in the form of a “loan” to a couple of HUGE banks (with a very low interest rate) thus devaluing the currency that I have sitting in my safe so that, by the time I go to buy the new suit, inflation has kicked in and raised the cost of the new suite to, let’s say $1600, that means that I am out $200 worth of purchasing power. With me so far? OK, tell me what happened to $200 worth of purchasing power of the money that I earned. It disappeared into thin air right? No, that is not correct. The $200 of value was transferred to the banks that got the new money at low interest rates and were able to use that money at the value of the money at the time (before the inflation kicked in from the printing of new money). Furthermore, the Federal Reserve bank was able to “loan” the money created out of thin air and “earn” interest on it. So, the Fed and the other bank get to share the $200 that I lost. Tell me, did the Government (either federal or state) get any of the money? No, not in this scenario they didn’t. So, if no government was able to spend the money that I lost but, instead, two non-government entities benefited from my $200, how is it a tax and, if it’s not a tax, what is it? Let’s see: two private entities colluded to take what I earned, against my will, for gain. What would that be called on a much smaller scale if it were two bullies that held me down and took $200 out of my wallet and spent the money on booze and a cheap hooker? Oh, that’s right, it would be considered a mugging or, more simply, THEFT!

Yea, in some cases, the Fed prints money and loans it to the government. In this scenario, it’s a little more like a tax. However, even if we classify it as a tax, how can you not consider this theft? It’s a hidden and sinister tax designed to keep people in the dark as to how their savings (and future earnings) are being constantly and steadily devalued. And, more importantly, there is a private entity that is gaining interest on money taken from me and “loaned” to the government. For example, say I earn an $80,000 salary this year. The amount that is left over after the more visible tax is, let’s say around $54,000. That $54,000 has a certain purchasing power today but, next year, as a result of inflation, that $54,000 might only have today’s purchasing power of, for the sake of argument, let’s say, $48,000. How is it that, although I’m earning the same $80,000, I lost $6000 worth of purchasing power? Well, we know HOW I lost it. The more appropriate question is WHY I lost it and, finally, was it MORALLY JUST to take away $6000 of the value of my time/labor in this sneaky and sinister way? If anyone else pulled this kind of ponzi-scheme on the public, they would go to jail for life (remember Bernie Madoff??). So, if it’s called theft when Madoff does it, why is it not theft when the Federal Reserve Bank and the government do it?

Here’s a fun tidbit: 100 years ago, with a gold coin, you could purchase a nice suit. Today, with the same
gold coin, you can purchase an even nicer suit. 100 years ago, with about $25 in government currency, you could purchase a nice new suit. Today, that same suit would cost about $1400 in government currency.