The Newspeak of Paul Krugman – Destruction is Creation

In his September 28 New York Times blog post, Paul Krugman announced that “economics is not a morality play.” That turn of phrase is his way of defending the idea that in unusual times, such as the sort of deep recession we are in, we can get strange relationships between economic cause and effect. The result is that actions which we might find highly distasteful can have positive effects. Thus we cannot afford to be overly concerned with morality if the goal is to get out of the recession.

Specifically, Krugman defends the claim that World War II got us out of the Great Depression, because “this is a situation in which virtue becomes vice and prudence is folly; what we need above all is for someone to spend more, even if the spending isn’t particularly wise.” Even spending on something destructive like war, he argues, is what is needed to solve the problem, especially when the “political consensus for [domestic] spending on a sufficient scale” is not available. In Krugman’s version of Orwell’s Newspeak, destruction creates wealth, and war, though not ideal, is morally acceptable because it produces economic growth.

Thankfully, we can get behind his Newspeak to see the fallacy of his economics. To believe that spending – any kind of spending – is the cure for what ails us is to ignore the subjective nature of wealth and the microeconomic basis of economic growth in favor of an absolute reification of economic aggregates such as GDP and unemployment. Spending trillions of dollars fighting a war can certainly bring idle capital and labor into employment, driving up GDP and lowering unemployment. But this does not mean we are any wealthier than we were before.

Wealth increases when people are able to engage in exchanges they believe will be mutually beneficial. The production of new goods that consumers wish to purchase is the beginning of this process. When instead we borrow from future generations to spend on goods and services connected not to the desires of consumers, but rather to the desire of the politically powerful to rain death and destruction on other parts of the world, we are not allowing individuals the freedom to do the things they think will make themselves better off. And we are certainly not extending that freedom to those killed in the name of our economy-enhancing war. At a very basic level, the idea that any kind of spending is desirable overlooks the fact that spending on war (and, I would argue, public works as well) actively prevents people from enhancing their wealth through production and exchange linked to consumer demand.

Employing people to dig holes and fill them up again, or to build bombs that will blow up Iraqis, will certainly reduce unemployment and increase GDP, but it won’t increase wealth. The problem of economics is the problem of coordinating producers and consumers. This coordination happens when we produce what consumers want using the least valuable resources possible. That is why it is wealth-enhancing to dig a canal using earth-movers with a few drivers rather than millions of people using spoons, even though the latter will generate more jobs.

Sending soldiers off to war is a waste of human and material resources, and is almost by definition wealth-destroying, no matter what it does to GDP or unemployment rates. The only way one can view economics amorally, as Krugman wishes to, is if one is only concerned with total GDP and not its composition. However, it is the composition of GDP, in the sense of how well what we’ve produced matches consumer wants, that ultimately matters for human well-being. It’s easy to create jobs and generate spending, but those do not constitute economic growth, and they are not necessarily indicators of human betterment.

So yes, Professor Krugman, it does matter how we try to get ourselves out of depressions. The world is not upside down and vices aren’t virtues. War isn’t peace and destruction isn’t wealth-creation. The real solution to digging out of a recession is to remove the barriers to the free exchange and production that actually comprises wealth- creation. Borrowing trillions more from our grandchildren to spend on building the equivalent of pyramids or on blowing up innocents abroad only digs the hole deeper. And when one is reduced, as Krugman is, to saying we “needed Hitler and Hirohito” to get us out of that hole in the 1930s, one has abandoned morality to worship at the altar of economic aggregates.

No critic of free-market economics can ever again accuse us of being irrational and immoral when it is Paul Krugman who says destruction creates wealth, and war is an acceptable second-best path to economic growth. Don’t let Krugman’s Newspeak fool you: War and destruction are exactly what they appear to be. To argue as Krugman does is to abandon both economics and morality. Big Brother would be proud.

Steven Horwitz
for Markets and Money

Markets and Money offers an independent and critical perspective on the Australian and global investment markets. Slightly offbeat and far from institutional, Markets and Money delivers you straight-forward, humorous, and useful investment insights from a world wide network of analysts, contrarians, and successful investors. Founded in 1999, Markets and Money is published in 7 countries with a worldwide readership of almost 1 million people.

Leave a Reply

7 Comments on "The Newspeak of Paul Krugman – Destruction is Creation"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Excellent article Steven. Krugman talks non-sense if he sees that a war by or with the US would solve the US’s economic wars. It might well have been fine, for the US when mighty Great Britain took on the Germany, or when Iran fought Iraq, and the US sold into either side, or even at times both sides of those wars. Better yet, when those wartime economies either sought capital, or the quick and ready cheap disposal of their national resource, say colonies and oil. But the picture is certainly blurred when it is US soldiers marching through the Guadalcanal… Read more »
Ned S

Yep, if Prof Krugman reckons what the US needs is a ‘good’ war to get itself out of the hole, may I suggest that they start the ball rolling by having California nuke Texas or suchlike this time round?


The nickname ‘Freddy Krugman’ doesn’t begin to capture the full horror of this man’s evil.

You guys are talking past each other. You say Krugman is advocating war, war = destruction, ergo Krugman advocates destruction. Your “aha” is that “destruction” caused by war cannot equal “wealth creation.” Maybe not at the 100,000 foot level where the earth’s final balance sheet resides, but the war and deficits undoubtedly were helpful in creating and preserving wealth in many “micro” segments and locations, especially in the US, which did not experience the direct destructiveness of WW2. “Wealth creation” is a worthy goal, but even if your critique of Krugman and Keynes is airtight the fact that they are… Read more »
That stratosperic final level may not be as remote as we would like to think or hope. We are living and multiplying like lemmings in a world of finite resources. What’s left over requires an ever increasing chunk of energy to exploit. Now, if all this ‘useless’ economic activity that the Krugmans of the world advocates merely wasted resources that’s infinite, that would have been… well, unfortunately wasteful. When we are dealing with finite resources, we really need to consider whether we as a collective, can afford to squander what little of it is left. Keep in mind that there… Read more »

Hi AdW

Tim Flannery’s new book, “Here on Earth” is a good read about what may happen to earth in the future. It’s not all doom and gloom but basically says we will be forced to change.

Until then maybe we should try to live the change we want to see. Hopefully it will catch on.

I am living the change I would like to see, though not due to my effort. Its mid October in sub tropical Australia and I am freezing my arse off and wet to boot. Jokes aside, The big picture might be more optimistic than the above comments. Families in the coastal cities of China are having 1 or less children, even though they are able to have more. Another example of affluence breeding well, non breeding. emergent technologies like good batteries and cheap solar power etc have much potential (not like the 40 year wait to get to this stage… Read more »
Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to