By MIKE JENSEN
Publisher
Sikeston
Standard Democrat
Paul Krugman is the Nobel Prize winning liberal voice of the New York Times.
Krugman's "expertise" is in the field of economics. But ever the liberal, Krugman sees everything through a far left political prism.
This week, New Yorker Krugman pondered an unusual question: Why do small towns exist?
The economist-turned-political expert believes that small towns offer zilch and that the demise of small towns is both inevitable and long overdue.
It's funny that Krugman extolls the virtues of mega-urban centers without mentioning crime, filth, urban blight and congestion.
But first you have to understand that the New York Times columnist's urban world is filled with wealthy, powerful urbanites, well-connected politically and far removed from the very issues that make residents flee his metropolitan swamp.
Small towns - really small towns - are indeed dying.
But urban centers are hemorrhaging residents left and right.
Krugman's attack on small town America slyly fails to define a small town. That way, he can skillfully point to examples to prove his arrogant theory.
It should be noted that the Chinese apparently share Krugman's disdain for rural life.
China, it is said, is developing blueprints for a future megalopolis of 250,000,000 residents packed tightly into an urban nightmare.
I'm sure we want to follow the lead of the Chinese because when was China ever wrong?
Do snobby urban elites have nothing better to do than bemoan the plight of backward, flyover rubes stuck in our small town quagmire?
I can't help but wonder if Krugman arrived at this epiphany while stuck in traffic.
I would invite Mr. Krugman to visit small town America and witness firsthand why we favor the dull, drab and ordinary small town existence.
Maybe we could compare notes over throwed rolls at Lambert's.
Sorry Paulie Boy, no fine wines on the menu.
Who do you think we are, New York City?!