More Dweebs at Econospeak {Econoldge}

I found some more dweeb economists on the web. Maybe the Google CEO is right, the internet is a cesspool.
Can Destabilizing Speculation Both Be Profitable and Help Obama Win the Election?

Paul Krugman treats us to a recent rightwing claim that a bunch of rich socialists have generated the recent financial crisis in order to assure that Obama wins the election. Paul reminds us that this same crowd back in 2004 claimed George Soros would do the same in order to help John Kerry.

Oh boy those dweebs provide a link to another Dweeb. Paul the Dweeb tells us that Crooked Timber has the goods on the vast right-wing conspiracies as in:

Let me be the first to welcome our new Socialist International Conspirator Overlords
Some unkind lefties (including one of my co-bloggers) were a little dismissive towards this post by ‘Dr. Helen,’ blogger and Instaspouse of Professor Glenn Reynolds.
...
But now Barbara Ehrenreich (via Cosma ) has let the cat out of the bag and it’s even worse than Dr. Helen suspected.

So what do we have? A blog post by Dr. Helen. Not even someone that has a background in economics and does not represent much of the right by my standard. And a comedy post by Barbara Ehrenreich at Report from the Socialist International Conspiracy via Three-Toed Sloth. So where is our Right Wing Nuts? No where when Barbara Ehrenreich is defined in Wiki as:

is an American feminist, socialist and political activist. She is a widely read columnist and essayist, and the author of nearly 20 books.

So a socialist is our right wing?

Back to Paul Krugman the Dweeb:

But why should we be surprised? Before the 2004 election, there was a lot of talk on the right about how George Soros would engineer a financial crisis to swing the election:

This was just segway back EconoSpeak

OK but aren’t there a lot of rich people who want McCain to win? If the rich lefties are engaged in what amounts to be destabilizing activity – couldn’t the rich righties make money by engaging in stabilizing speculation? Interestingly, Marxist.com brings us the thoughts of Milton Friedman on this issue:

Milton Friedman asserted that destabilising speculation was impossible. This was supposed to be the case because speculators who ‘got it wrong’ would be buying dear and selling cheap. They would lose money and soon disappear.

So are these rightwingers saying that Friedman got this issue wrong?

Maybe there is a lot of rich folds that want McCain to win but are they as willing to invest to see it happen is the question. And considering that Obama is getting more money in donations and that much is coming from the CEO class that may be supportive of McCain in his election based on their preconceived biases then it is who is more willing to risk their assets.

But it is true that if the Libs decide to destabilize the markets and the Right decide to counter it they could make money as much the same way that governments do if they predict the natural level correctly.

I see no one telling Friedman he is wrong just that Libs seem more willing to invest large amounts of capital to push their candidate onto other people. Just as yes Soros risked 30 million to get Bush defeated which as we know failed. With Soros and a few of his friends could if they wanted to and was a directed attack could disrupt the markets. We do have Soros being influential in the collapse of the British Pound in the early 90s and again in East Asian Financial Crisis of 97-98.

So back to the Friedman point, the question becomes what is defined as "soon" and whether the Libtards are willing to lose some serious change to make the markets out of order. If taking the convicted insider Soros as an example then Yes I believe some libtards would be interested enough to do such things.