I had nothing to do with the creation of this, and yes it is completely unfair. And hilarious.
This is totally unfair.
Only if Gilligan thought (incorrectly) that he has nothing else better to do, would Krugman setting the hut on fire be a wealth generating activity.
We live and die by the entrepreneurship of statists like Krugman.
MF you are unfair too.
Please note that burning his house down is only the second best solution. It would be better to build some infrastructure, government rule number one is: You can always build infrastructure!
However in any case not burning the house down and just enjoying leisure or looking for something valuable to do himself is clearly the worst option…
Or at least let him burn his house down himself by offering him a scrapping premium (which is borrowed by government, this way Gilligan even gets a riskless savings vehicle in form of a bond! A double win!).
There are much more sophisticated ways create work than just going around with a flamethrower. That just looks so barbaric which is not good for public relations.
This whole comic is misleading anyway. Because there seems to be just Gilligan and Krugman, on an otherwise deserted island, we can see crystal clearly what it would really mean for Krugman to engage in Keynesianism.
It would be far less misleading when the context is millions of individuals, where the costs of Keynesianism are difficult to track, and where destruction can more easily be mistaken for production.
Seriously though, you’re right. It would be far better for Krugman to start building roads on the other side of the island using his own resources and labor and leave poor Gilligan in peace, or at least offer something of value to him.
At least Gilligan is better off now.
To the curios on looker:
If you came to this discussion thread to gather insight regarding the Krugman, Gilligan, the burning hut and wealth, you are probably left wanting.
Let me make it clear.
Destruction, whether it be man made or more natural such as a tornado, NEVER EVER creates more wealth.
Destruction requires you to exert significant energy and consume significant resources just to get back to the level of wealth prior to destruction. There is no NET GAIN when rebuilding after destruction. There is no stimulant, no multiplier effect, no 20 new jobs, NOTHING good comes from destruction.
Krugman saved the islands economy from certain disaster! By forcing Gilligan to expend his excess capital to rebuild the hut, it prevented him from otherwise spending that capital building a boat to get off the island… Island saved from disaster!
The scary thing is that this is the Keynesian position.
Mail (will not be published)
This site uses valid HTML and CSS. All content Copyright © 2010 Consulting by RPM