MIT Gangsters Rule

Goodbye, Chicago boys. Hello, M.I.T. gang.”

Who says this? No less than Paul Krugman (himself with a PhD from MIT), in a New York Times editorial “The MIT Gang“. I will get back to the murder-friendly attitude of Krugman, who not only extols the MIT influence as a good thing, but moreover glosses over the nefarious influence of American trained economists, “The Chicago Boys“, in destroying democracy. And not just democracy. The role of economic ideology from the American plutocratic universities was so nefarious that tens of thousands were outright assassinated, so that Chicago economics could be implemented. Bad economics is bad in all ways, including the most murderous ones. Not only Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and the Khemr Rouge had murderous economics. Arguably, present day economics may be even more lethal.

MIT Economics Favors Plutocracy (=Pluto Power)

MIT Economics Favors Plutocracy (=Pluto Power)

After 2008, the MIT gangsters Krugman effrontly lauds, put trillions of dollars at the disposition of the very banksters who had caused the 2008 crash. Yes, those gentlemen gangsters have names. Those gangsters are so famously, they could be called gangstars. Those stars directed the world’s two most important central banks, or played the top roles, just below the ill-fated Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the IMF, or World Bank, etc. (Krugman sings their praise, and their names, in his “MIT Gang” essay).

The crash was actually the transfer of colossal amounts of money from the banks to a subset of plutocrats, ruining the banks. To refloat the banks, public money (see Greece) was called in, both from Treasuries and from Central Banks. The red graph above depicts that transfer as the scarlet exponential of shame. And no one, among those who control the world, condescend to observe it, let alone, explain it.

Although I was diplomatic enough not to even allude to these horrors, I sent the following comment to the New York Times. It was immediately censored:

The Chicago, and MIT economic departments rule. Who elected them, as our leaders? Who elected the Central Banks, and authorized them to buy at outrageous prices the property of private banks? That’s so-called “Quantitative Easing“… Thus enabling the bankers, banksters and gangsters who caused the crash of 2008 to keep on deciding who wins, and who loses, socioeconomically?

The private banks, extend credit to the richest of the rich.Thus they comfort, and buttress the plutocrats… Who then invite the president to gather money during parties in their mansions.

Why have so few people, so much power? Under which political theory? Which theory advocates that only a few people rule? Few: in Greek, Oligos. To rule: Arkhein. Oligos-Arkein: such a theory is called Oligarchy.

So the few rule. Question: why is a MIT gang better than a Chicago gang, a Wall Street gang, or a Sicilian gang?

Because we owe more respect to a MIT gang than to the Mafia? Why? Did we vote to have so much respect for MIT, we want them, MIT gangsters, to take all the decisions about the society in which we live? Our economic well-beings? Our employment? Our lives?

And when did we switch from democracy (Greek: Demos-Kratos, English: People-Power) to Oligarchy? Did we vote to surrender our powers to various gangs? I gather we did not. Thus, when, and how did this silent coup occur? What measures do we need to take, to return to democracy?

Patrice Ayme’

Note: Some commentators have complained that I am too tough on Krugman: he is a good guy, he is on the side of progress, he is on my side, I am biting a fellow creature. Indeed, Krugman is viewed as the standard bearer of social progress, and not at all the standard bearer of plutocratic universities. So let Krugman talk a little bit more in his own offense in the editorial at hand: : “If you don’t know what I’m talking about, the term “Chicago boys” was originally used to refer to Latin American economists, trained at the University of Chicago, who took radical free-market ideology back to their home countries. The influence of these economists was part of a broader phenomenon: The 1970s and 1980s were an era of ascendancy for laissez-faire economic ideas and the Chicago school, which promoted those ideas.

But that was a long time ago. Now a different school is in the ascendant, and deservedly so.”

Notice the pernicious context. What you have to know is that these “Latin American Economists trained at the University of Chicago, who took radical free-market ideology back to theior home countries.”

It sounds innocuous, but actually these “boys” set-up dictatorships in their countries, who killed tens of thousands of people in Argentina alone.

Similar “economic” performance was achieved in Chile, Brazil, and a dozen other Latin American states thus inspired. Nothing that Paul Krugman is allowed to remember while he wants to stay in good standing with plutocracy supreme.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , ,

6 Responses to “MIT Gangsters Rule”

  1. gmax Says:

    When I read the “MIT GANG” post of Krugman, I could not believe he white washed the Chicago Boys gang for the installation of right wing dictatorships in Latin America. I had to pinch myself. Was he for real, this self-proclaimed “conscience of a liberal”? Or was he fuc… kidding with us? Like laughing in our faces out loud?

    Thanks for setting the record straight.


  2. picard578 Says:

    Reblogged this on Analyzing World.


  3. pshakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice: You will like this analogy about income inequality and ecological destruction by Mitchell.
    TROPHIC CASCADE: An ecological process by which the top of the food chain affects all levels, down to the base. It changes an entire ecosystem

    All animals and plants compete for food and space, and in competing, they affect other animals and plants.

    A trophic cascade can occur when top predators are strengthened or weakened. Strengthening top preditors can reduce the abundance of, and/or change the behavior of, their prey. This, in turn, can reduce the abundance of, and/or change the behavior of their prey, and so on down the line.

    Weaker top predators can allow prey immediately below them to grow, often to the detriment of succeeding ecological layers.

    A trophic cascade can have unexpected results. For example, trophic cascades in Yellowstone National Park changed the abundance of wildlife, of plant life and even changed the course of Yellowstone’s rivers.

    The first trophic cascade lasted for centuries, as U.S. farmers and ranchers (two of our more ecologically destructive business groups), killed gray wolves for sport and to protect livestock.

    This killing was so effective that by 1920, gray wolves, the area’s top predator, essentially vanished from Yellowstone.

    With the top predator gone, deer and elk overpopulated and overgrazed. Grasses and trees began to disappear, and with them went smaller mammals, bears, beavers, bison, birds, reptiles and many species of fish.

    Yellowstone began to die from the absence of its top predator.

    Then, in 1995, a second trophic cascade began. Wolves were reintroduced to the Park.

    Despite their small number, the wolves benefited the other animals, plants and the land itself. Not only did wolves seeking sustenance, cull the deer, but the threat posed by wolves changed the habits of their prey. The deer began to avoid valleys, where they could be trapped by wolf packs.

    This allowed the valley grasses and trees to return and flourish. Small rodents returned, which attracted hawks and eagles. The trees attracted beavers, whose dams created ponds for fish, which in turn attracted many fish-eating animals. The trees produced berries, which attracted bears. Several species of songbirds returned. The roots of the flora stabilized river banks, creating even more ponds for fish.

    In turn, the avoidance actions of the deer steered the wolves, which followed wherever their prey led.

    [At this point, I urge you to watch: a wonderful 4 ½ minite video describing how trophic cascade changed Yellowstone.]

    In American economics, the “top of the ‘food chain,’” is occupied by the U.S. government. The government is the top predator. Like wolves, the government’s existence, direction and sustenance depends upon and guides the desires, actions and motivations of the layers below.

    The “next layer below,” and providing the most sustenance to the government, are the billionaires – the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations. They are the big political contributors, made even bigger by recent Supreme Court decisions. Like the wolves following the deer, the government follows where the upper .1% leads.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Partha:
      I am aware of Trophic Cascade (although I do not use the term, I should, and will, from now on). Trophic comes from the Greek for food.
      All over, there was GIANT megafauna, which made the proper environment what it was.

      A well-known famous example is a giant tree in Mauritius island. All the specimens dated from when the Dodo disappeared. It would make fruits, but they won’t germinate. Finally, a few years back, scientists got the idea to make some turkeys swallow the fruits. The nuts that came out were planted, and germinated…

      I am for total re-wilding, including megafauna, including in Europe and America, including using genetic engineering.

      In the USA, the deer (the billionaires) are becoming the bosses. When the sheep lead, civilization is in trouble.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: