I have made a great study of Paul Krugman's vast politico-economic distress, I have grieved his frustrations these short summer nights, I have labored to unlock the source of his woes and have endeavored to offer succor. Now, finally, my toil pays off, for I am prepared to diagnose. And wouldn't you know it? The vastest difficulties so often lie rooted in the simplest of imperfections: Paul Krugman hasn't yet learned his pronouns.
Listening to what supposedly serious people say about the economy, you’d think the problem was "no, we can't." But the reality is "no, we won't."
My dear Mr. Krugman, my dear, concise Mr. Krugman: We can't, you see, because they won't. We have nothing to do with it. They're the problem. And their problematic badass selves are intentional and determined and attitudinally fixed like Gibraltar, therefore we cannot indeed.
To suggest a collective "we" in control of us is as uselessly simplistic as railing against the collective we who voted for Bush-Cheney, since it was they who committed that foul and unforgivable wickedness, the consequences of which we merely suffer.
However your mind, Mr. Krugman, does roll in and out of practical lucidity, as evidenced by this passage:
The truth is that creating jobs in a depressed economy is something government could and should be doing. Yes, there are huge political obstacles to action — notably, the fact that the House is controlled by a party that benefits from the economy’s weakness.
While your modifier of "political obstacles" is "huge," it would have held real-world value only in the form of "hugely immovable." Because that's what they -- they in the House, and all the little moronic theys who put them there -- are: immovable. At least until next year.
You then write that "political gridlock should not be conflated with economic reality." For whom is that intended? Us? Them? We in the real world quite properly conflate gridlock with reality, because the reality of our situation is that we're gridlocked. Those others -- those mired in the squalid fantasies of neoclassical economics -- are only too happy to force "should" into "must."
I have confidence that you, Mr. Krugman, can master your pronouns. After that we'll tackle in greater detail the intricacies of conditional verbs. For now, let's just work on who the hell we are.