Semi-Daily Journal

Radicals are really frightened by Paul Krugman. Well, they seem frightened by democracy as well. The idea seems to be to completely undo programs of federal social benefits, but to do it be stealth. Paul Krugman points out what is happening clearly and compellingly and has an enormous audience. The question is do we allow a looting of the treasury public services?

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,258983,00.html

George Akerlof
7/29/03

The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting.

Thanks Bill.

I don't know why you would think that these people would lose credibility. After all, 50% of Americans believe in creationism and there is a very healthy market for books, speakers, etc. One would think that they have SERIOUS credibility problems. Then there is L Ron Hubbard and Dianetics. Then there are about 30% of Americans that believe that the Clinton's were guilty of crimes related to Whitewater, or that at least one person in the Clinton administration was guilty of something in Whitewater when in fact, no Clinton administration officials nor were the Clinton's themselves involved in any criminality in Whitewater. It was all a media hoax. But have the writers at the NYT like Jeff Gerth lost credibility? or Isikoff or the hundreds of other reporters who were duped by Arkansas con artists?

National Review writes to the true believers. These are not critical thinkers. These are the dualistic dittoheads that show up in Econ 101 and are disappointed to learn that there is no one single correct answer to a lot of questions. National Review is feeding the emotional hatred of the right wing for anyone even mildly critical of their firmly held beliefs. PK had the audacity to criticize the Bush tax cut plan. He must be an evil person who is against everything they believe in. The right wing truly believe in tax cuts and that tax cuts will bring a golden age of economic expansion. The gospel cannot be refuted. PK is against the tax cuts. However, the tax cuts are necessary to stimulate economic recovery. Therefore PK is against economic recovery. Therefore PK wants a recession. See the logic is straight forward and irrefutable. It follows logically from first principles. True believers like Bush the tax cutter will bring economic prosperity. Anti-tax cutters like Krugman are evil heretics.

Washington - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan today put the blame for the U.S. recession squarely on the shoulders of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"The blame for the current recession that began in 2001 should not be placed on the failed policies of the Bush Administration. Instead, that dubious honor should go to that liberal economist Paul Krugman and his bad attitude.

In fact, we should refer to this sluggish period as the Krugman Recession," Greenspan said in remarks during an appearance before a Senate panel as part of his twice-a-year report to Congress on monetary policy.

- IWR

In all fairness to maestro Al, the good Professor, the mischevious IWR, and more sheltered readers who wander into this thread, dahl really should have included the link to:

http://www.internetweekly.org/photo_cartoons/cartoon_greenspan_krugman.html

C'mon Brad we all know that you are just bitter that Luskin "nailed" you for lying when you did not update your CV and embarassed you by exposing that you were teaching (excuse me "feeding at the public trough") at "Bersekely".

You should give up in the face of such brilliant criticism and admit that you are just envious that you don't get to write about economics for the National Review. Seriously though, I think Jonah Goldberg and John Derbyshire should write on bond markets and the village economics idiot should write about the unspeakable evils of gay marriage. I am sure this will only improve the arguments being laid out on the pages of National Review.

>>I think Jonah Goldberg and John Derbyshire should write on bond markets and the village economics idiot should write about the unspeakable evils of gay marriage. I am sure this will only improve the arguments being laid out on the pages of National Review.<<

You could be right. It's scary...

Brad

Love you.

Anne

Somewhat fitting with Alex Tabarrok writting, but National Review could cross over into Virginia, enter GMU's econ department, randomly knock on a door and get conservative (well, with a libertarian bent) economic opinion infinitely better than what they use.

Advocating action that one knows will not happen is not the same as cheerleading. If Krugman wants the Fed to pursue policies they plainly are not pursuing, is that rooting for the economy or criticizing the Fed?

"I believe we should have free elections in Iraq tomorrow, and that the Bush Administration is anti-freedom for not scheduling them."

Now am I championing Iraqi freedom or busting balls?

And don't you think Krugman would criticize ANY tax package the Bushies put together? Hey, it's not as stimulative as it could be. But Krugman's credibility was long gone before he weighed in on this.

Sponge, I don't think Krugman would criticize any program the administration put together. If they put together a reasonable proposal I would be surprised if he PK not give them credit. PK is not the partisan the right wing makes of him. After all, he was critical of Clinton economic policy. PK is not criticizing Fed policy, but the statement by AG in support of tax cuts for reasons that were economically flawed. One thing that any rational debate requires is honesty and that is missing from the Bush administration arguments. How can you debate someone if they don't stick to the truth?

I keep seeing these claims that PK has low credibility, but I just don't get it. He's done plenty of Demo-bashing in his day. In fact, because he made so many enemies for speaking the truth about dumb ideas from people like Robert Reich, he wasn't appointed to a position during the Clinton administration.

Sure, he's been negative on the Bushies, but that says more about the quality of their policies than PK's objectivity.

I think the reason he gets bashed so much is precisely BECAUSE his credibility is so high. The Radical Right is scared of scared of him, so they keep up the mantra he's shrill, he's biased, etc., etc. That's their style.

"How can you debate someone if they don't stick to the truth?"

Very good point.

If the best lies that one can get are the two quoted, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Are these Big Lies?

1) I don't know whether Krugman is hoping for recession. But simply because he has advocated policies which he says will get us out of a recession, does not mean he doesn't hope that today's recession continues (given his policies weren't enacted). He might hope for the recession to continue, for instance, because he might hope that therefore Bush isn't re-elected.

2) I'm a bear like Krugman, and yet I have to admit that durable goods were strong. I don't think it will last, however, but then "shortage of good economic news nowadays" is hardly put so strongly that it's a "lie".

By the way Krugman wrote a very good article on Greenspan last week. http://www.iht.com/articles/103352.html

I understand the Professor has issue with this NR piece, but it's a long way from the only criticism Krugman gets. The Web is crawling with fact-checking pieces that pretty much expose him either as careless or a liar.

The fact that he was tough on Clinton proves nothing--Clinton took a lot of heat from his own guys. Krugman hates the Bushies and it's colored every single thing he's written in the last 3 years.

Luskin's "career" at Jim Cramer's Real Money:

1) Luskin spends months providing disastrous advice for subscribers.

2) Luskin starts babbling about gold.

3) Luskin continues to babble inane nonsense about gold.

4) Cramer calls him "disingenuous" and tells Luskin that given his track record in managing money he should never ever have given him a job.

5) Luskin explodes in self-righteous fury and proceeds to insult pretty much everyone on the site - including superlative trader and total gentleman, Todd Harrison.

6) Luskin quits.

7) Luskin starts his own site and continues the sniping from there.

8) Luskin is told by one very senior Real Money figure to grow up.

9) Eventually Luskin quits whining.

"Krugman hates the Bushies"
It's just not that personal or even that political. If you read Krugmans journalistic work from 95 onwards you realise that his opposition to Bush is principled and rational. Krugmans understanding of Macroeconomics puts him at odds with Bush's policies. Go read his old Slate and Fortune articles, its all there.

If you want to see hate you just need to look into the eyes of William F Buckley Jr.

It seems that the DILEMMA before us is one of
IDEAology. Everyone is free to BELIEVE and then wait for history to judge. If you look at the views of people like LARRY KUDLOW you can see the most cynical free market view. He basically feels
that some semblence of "transparency" will provide some cover. But in the end DECEPTION is essential to making PROFIT at this late date.
We now hear of complaints of the $$$COSTS of SARBANES OXLEY is approximately $8 million/year
for the BIG Investment Firms. What price is BUSINESS ethics. I believe HONEST profits are a thing of history. Kudlow recently stated if MEDICARE is so wonderful why is it so BIG and expensive? The next day WSJ headline read,"ABBOTT
will pay $600 million for defrauding Medicare on tube feeding charges. If Paul Krugman is guilty of anything it's he still thinks altruistic Capitalism is a possibility in the face of BUSINESS as USUAL. Does anyone believe that "honest profit" is in fact an OXYMORON. I find it hard to make a case for this economy to expand its way out of trouble at 5-6% without fraud and deception

"You have to have confidence that people will have enough memory of ..."

It's not confidence then, it's faith we're talking about... :-( Most people barely have any understanding of the present(*), don't ask them to have a sense of perspective. Now, I want to believe that we can, over time and with a LOT of patience, educate the public to connect the dots. But it's a kind of a eutopian vision, an ideal, that we're talking about, I think. (Professor DeLong's website gives me hope that we're actually slouching towards this ideal.)

"And you have to have confidence that those who write on social and political issues for National Review will find these kinds of straight contrary-to-fact statements embarrassing"

They believe they're on a higher mission, and I believe they know they're lying, but they think they lie for a "good cause". For "America", for the sake of "leadership", etc. etc. Like Nixon, for example... At the extreme, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and all the others believed in their "good cause", however evil these leaders actually were.

(*) For example, Watergate broke out BEFORE Nixon's reelection.

P.S. "I understand the Professor has issue with this NR piece, but it's a long way from the only criticism Krugman gets."

Running out of arguments? Experiencing some doubts yourself perhaps?

Spongeworthy wrote: "The Web is crawling with fact-checking pieces that pretty much expose him either as careless or a liar."

Oh, please. Care to actually try to back up that claim? That's just garbage.

The radical right trades in deception and villification. So, Paul Krugman who is honest, incisive, and courageous is a threat. The rest of us are dearly grateful to PK.

paul, Google:

Krugman partisan lies

paul, Google:

Krugman partisan lies

paul, Google:

Krugman partisan lies

I believe that Paul Krugman is right to criticize President Bush's tax cuts. But by demonizing President Bush and his administration and attributing to them evil motives Krugman has been partly responsible for the nasty turn the debate has taken.

I believe that Paul Krugman is right to criticize President Bush's tax cuts. But by demonizing President Bush and his administration and attributing to them evil motives Krugman has been partly responsible for the nasty turn the debate has taken.

Bush's tax cuts have produced the most vibrant economy in the last 20 years. It's funny to look back at this argument taking place 6 months ago...Krugman has been proved the partsian hack he is.

Bush's tax cuts have produced the most vibrant economy in the last 20 years. It's funny to look back at this argument taking place 6 months ago...Krugman has been proved the partsian hack he is.