This is what Andrew Sullivan says about Paul Krugman on his website at this very moment:

"THE WORLD ENDETH: I agree with most of Paul Krugman's column on space exploration today. (I admit I read it mainly to see if he could manage to blame Bush. But he didn't. What a let-down.) Money graf:

Does that mean people should never again go into space? Of course not. Technology marches on: someday we will have a cost-effective way to get people into orbit and back again. At that point it will be worth rethinking the uses of space. I'm not giving up on the dream of space colonization. But our current approach — using hugely expensive rockets to launch a handful of people into space, where they have nothing much to do — is a dead end.Pity about that final phrase. But the rest makes sense. Charles Krauthammer is a useful book-end to Krugman. His solution: stop the risky ups and downs of the first 150 miles into space and aim much higher."

Or, we could strop Occam's Razor, and realize that Krugman is playing Ahab to George W. Moby Dick. And anyone with a sense of humor can't fail to enjoy giving it back to the completely self-unaware economist capable of writing (November 7, 2001):

"As little as three years ago Argentina's 'currency board' monetary
system was the subject of extravagant praise ... and economists at the Cato Institute established lucrative consulting practices advising
other countries to mimic Argentina's approach."

And a month later (December 11, 2001)wondering how anybody could have gotten this idea:

"Contrary to what some may have inferred from a previous column, no staff members at the Cato Institute are in the currency-regime
consulting business."

Many more similarly ridiculous examples available on request.

I'm sorry, but ever since Ted Barlow 'fisked' a lighbulb joke, whenever one of the war bloggers gets all bunched up about Krugman or war-protesters, I just start giggling...

Theory #3: That (a) there are so few real liberals left in the media to bash that it's a challenge and (b) only Sullivan and Kaus are silly enough to try to match wits with Krugman.

As we have seen, all that the attempts of Kaus and Sullivan have brought them is closer scrutiny, revealing vastly more daily errors on their part than Krugman makes in a year.

David, is this how you spend your day? Hanging out
at Delong's blog?

Its kinda sad.

"David, is this how you spend your day? Hanging out
at Delong's blog?

Its kinda sad."

Hey, my probation officer is just happy that I'm no longer mugging old ladies. I also hope to bankrupt the State of California. The cost associated with Brad DeLong's bandwidth needs are making life difficult for Gray Davis and the Berkeley campus. This should help Arnold Schwarzenegger win in the next election.

I think you DeLong lefties have it wrong. What really bothers Kaus and Sullivan is the sheer unprofessionalism and bias of Krugman.

Take the CATO example that Patrick cites above where Krugman claims that folks at CATO were taking "lucrative consulting practices" advising Argentina when in reality they were just minor players who had the economics of currency boards wrong. Now Sully or Kaus would never do something like that, they would never go around making a mountain out of some small consulting fee that a certain once large now gone country (well actually company) would pay to an economist.

Also take Krugman's continually unfair carping about Bush. We all know that Kaus and Sully would never ever pick on a president of the United States in such a carping, tendentious manner. They would instead provide objective, non-fawning coverage and if only that damn Howell Raines didn't get his way, we could all see that balanced coverage on the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times.

Also, unlike Krugman, Sully and Kaus are really good at cutting through the fog and highlighting the underlying economic policies proposed in Washington. I mean, Kaus understood that the Bush administration was trying to reduce government by a highly strategic plan of running up large deficits even before the words were out of Glenn Hubbard's mouth. And Sully, well he knows his limitations but he is honest enough to know when to call on Wharton professors who assure us that a plunge is sometimes something that happens over a long period of time instead of a short period of time.

Fuck fuck shit shit poopie poop

Sorry guys. This was my approximate post, which got lost in transition.

"Achilles, use your irony emoticon. There's nothing so dumb that those guys won't say it. On Atrios I tried to parody the Freepers and found out that it was impossible. For example, someone posted this there: "Fuck fuck shit shit poopie poop"."

When I think of the many times that the software ate my whole post..... why did it only eat part of this one?

"We all know that Kaus and Sully would never ever pick on a president of the United States in such a carping, tendentious manner."

We actually do know that. Please take another look at the very first post on this thread. Sullivan is praising Krugman’s most recent column. Mickey Kaus also gave Bill Clinton high marks for welfare reform. Both men are more than willing to criticize Republicans and Democrats. Andrew Sullivan was a leader in making life difficult for Trent Lott. Also, I strongly recommend Kaus wonderful book “The End of Equality.”

Hmm, looks like Paul exaggerated Cato's import in the currency board business. Which, you know, is a terribly fatal sin when in actuality, Cato doesn't make lots of money from currency board consulting; the right is just way in favor of them.

I don't know what I would theorize on those two and as for Kaus, he might as well rename his blog the “I hate Krugman weblog”.

And is it only me that thinks that Slate as a whole is becoming a bit dilapidated with the quality of most of their articles.

Kinsley stepped down and Slate just kind of went south.

Omigod!! Two years ago Krugman misoverestimated Cato's role in the Argentine meltdown!! And he calls himself a professional and a scholar!! And he's even allowed to write articles in publications which ordinary, unsophisticated people who don't understand economics very well are allowed to read!! And he's criticizing the President of the United States over and over again just because the President's economic plan makes not a lick of sense by any standard whatsoever!!

Italics off? Sorry guys.

Patrick,

"As little as three years ago Argentina's 'currency board' monetary system was the subject of extravagant praise ... and economists at the Cato Institute established lucrative consulting practices advising other countries to mimic Argentina's approach."

And a month later (December 11, 2001) wondering how anybody could have gotten this idea:

"Contrary to what some may have inferred from a previous column, no staff members at the Cato Institute are in the currency-regime consulting business."

Many more similarly ridiculous examples available on request.

Call me blind, but I can't see anything ridiculous here... I know of at least one economist who is both a Senior Fellow at Cato Institute (which, by definition, means he is not a staff member) and an active participant in the currency-regime consulting business. Check me out:

http://www.cato.org/people/hanke.html...

Were Sully or Kaus expecting to get a place at the NY Times Op-Ed page? I think that they are so rabid against Krugman because Krugman is right and they are embarassed: Sully is incredibly loyal to Bush and is embarassed by Krugman's demonstrably true critiques of the Bushies' dishonesty and poor economic policy. Meanwhile Kaus is embarassed that Krugman pointed out his "bend over backwards" (DeLong's words not Krugman's) attitude towards Bush. Instead of leaving things alone, they are trying to "unembarass" themselves with their anti-Krugman crusades, but in fact are embarassing themselves further. This is perfectly understandable -- it's painful to be publicly proven wrong.

Whoops I mean that quote is from Josh marshall not DeLong

Please take another look at the very first post on this thread. Sullivan is praising Krugman’s most recent column.

And for what is Sullivan praising Krugman? A column about the Shuttle program -- not exactly what you'd call a politically charged issue. Maybe they both like Cookie Dough ice cream too.

That Sullivan -- always so much more eager to show balance than Krugman.

Krugman bashing is the flip side of the right's straw man tactic -- On the one hand, the Sullivans et al. pick extreme left views (Chomsky, ANSWER) and try to tar any opposition to Bush as closely allied to them, ignoring reasoned, moderate critics like Kinsley, Walzer, et al. On the other hand, when someone is in the Times 2X a week and can't be ignored, he must be demonized as a "leftist" (as in the recent Kurtz piece about Krugman). It's ridiculous to call Krugman a leftist and it shows the poisoning of the current political discourse. Someone who opposes Bush's radical economic (and foreign policy) and who espouses economic policies not all that different from Ike or even Nixon, is a dangerous "leftist." The right wants us to believe that it is the center and any opposition (whether its Krugman or Chomsky) is on the far left (and possibly "treasonous.)". Of course, they're abetted in this phony dichotomy by the "liberal media."

Nikolai, what is ridiculous is:

"economists at the Cato Institute established lucrative consulting practices...."

versus:

"Contrary to what some may have inferred from a previous column, no staff members at the Cato Institute are in the currency-regime consulting business."

"inferred"? He said it plainly.

BTW, how did you like Krugman's "apology" for libeling the Texas Rangers' partners:

>> A few people have asked me about that letter from Bush's former business associates, regarding the nature of his deal with the Texas Rangers syndicate. They assert something I didn't know: that he was granted a 12 percent share of the profits despite having put up only 2 percent of the money back in 1989, when the deal was initialized, rather than in 1998, when the franchise was sold. Assuming this is true - it would be nice to see the contract - does this make everything clean and above-board?

>> Actually, if anything it makes things worse. In fact, I suspect that the peculiarity of that contract, if it exists, is why we're only hearing about it now: had it been public knowledge at the time it would have raised a lot of questions. <<

In the final sentence of the above there are at least 3 errors of fact. Not to mention that he's gliding over the fact that he didn't understand the standard form limited partnership that was Bush's group.

For those arguing the "sour grapes" thing, how about the recent WaPo article on Krugman:

<<--------quote------------
Krugman, who had moved from
MIT (where he got his doctorate) to Stanford and back to MIT, was invited to
Little Rock to advise candidate Bill Clinton. After the election, newspapers
touted him as a possible chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

But Krugman was passed over, a decision he blames in part on his past
academic criticism of Robert Reich, who headed the economic transition team
and became Clinton's labor secretary. Krugman reacted like a spurned lover.

In a letter, he accused Reich of "intellectual laziness," saying Reich was a
"pop-internationalist" who wrote books on trade without understanding the
economics involved. In fact, Krugman contended, the Clinton administration
was filled with such nonexpert "policy entrepreneurs" who peddled their
views in newspapers and magazines.

This was a strange complaint from a man whose work was appearing in
publications from the Washington Monthly to Harper's to U.S. News & World
Report. And Krugman recognized that he was coming off as a purveyor of sour
grapes. "I was more or less disgraced," he wrote.
-----------endquote----------->>

Actually, Patrick, it seems to me that the distinction he is making is clear. He said "economists at the CATO institute established lucrative consulting practices" and issued the correction saying don't infer that "STAFF MEMBERS at Cato are in the consulting business" [emphasis mine] It strikes me then that Nikolai's post explains this perfectly: the guy in question is an economist at CATO but not a staff member, so the technicality is exactly right. And if Nikoai is right, then the technicality would come from CATO who would point out that the guy in question is not actually a STAFF MEMBER at CATO. I am only going by what I learnt from Nikolai's post, which you may disagree with.

For the record, I think Krugman was wrong on both the White and the Rangers affair on similarly technical grounds. He may have been right in principle, but the two key technical issues: Bush was not a sitting governor and no direct evidence tying White to the email are CRITICAL to his argument so he gets a technical foul there, and (in my book) loses all points gained from the principle argument. But you shouldn't argue against him on technicalities there and then come and rip him for using technicalities here.

But hey give me a choice between a guy who pores over corrections on the NY Times as evidence of deep liberal conspiracies and a guy who clearly lays out on paper what he believes are deep conservative conspiracies, and I will pick the latter over the former anytime.

You find this hard to explain? I think Kurtz showed how little thinking goes on in his pundit head. Consider the two sentences:

"In fact, Krugman contended, the Clinton administration was filled with such nonexpert "policy entrepreneurs" who peddled their views in newspapers and magazines."

and the one immediately following

"This was a strange complaint from a man whose work was appearing in publications from the Washington Monthly to Harper's to U.S. News & World Report."

Now you don't have to be Glenn Hubbard to recognize that there was nothing strange about an EXPERT writing in major publications complaining about NON-EXPERTS peddling their wares in the same publications. Why is that inconsistent. If I were as smart as Howie I would know. Alas I am not.

I believe explanation No 2 is correct.

Dumb and Dumber are simply professionally jealous.

Krugman prints untruths about political opponents in order to do them damage. He also seizes the most ridiculous pretexts to launch attacks on his Moby Dick. It is entirely reasonable to describe this behavior as that of a common hack. This doesn't make him any worse than the other common hacks, many of whom criticize Krugman, but the other common hacks usually aren't trading on an academic reputation. My criticism of Krugman will moderate when Krugman stops printing things that are untrue, and when he reigns in his nearly psychotic anti-Bush hysteria, which is particularly unfortunate, since there is much to criticize about this President on a purely rational basis.

I first heard of Mickey Kaus on this site; Mr. Delong linked to his excellent coverage of the 2000 Florida election process.
Impressed with this, I visited his blog for a while. There was nothing good after that. Finally I stopped checking. Most disappointing.

Uh, Achilles, if you review Krugman's popular journalism, you will find that he often offers commentary on topics outside his area of professional expertise, which makes his criticism of other non-experts who do the same somewhat silly.

I believe the valid analogy is whether Krugman influences policy in areas outside of his expertise, which was the crux of the railing against the 'policy entrepreneurs'. An expert in international trade writing about the fiscal policy of an administration (that is as likely to take heed of what he writes as it is to take foreign policy advice from Saddam Hussein) in a column in a major newspaper doesn't seem to quite fit that category.

Well, perhaps I was making the silly assumption that Krugman actually wrote pieces with a purpose in mind, that is, to influence public opinion, and therefore public policy, even regarding issues on which he holds no expertise. Who knows? Maybe he does it simply because he finds it more enjoyable than watching Oprah in the afternoon. Mind you, I don't find it objectionable when any citizen attempts to have their views prevail through peaceful means, regardless of their status as experts. I think it is a little silly, however, when one non-expert, who is attempting to have his non-expert views prevail, complains about another non-expert's greater success in doing so.

Hmmm what did he write on that he had no expertise on but claimed he did?

I think that the policy entrepreneur vs. professor had everything to do with the actual arguments the entrepreneurs were making (as well as their scant qualifications to discuss economic policy) and almost nothing to do with where they were actually publishing. Obviously Krugman had to publish in the popular press to counter them so that PEOPLE WOULD READ WHAT HE HAD TO SAY -- so I think that Kurtz is making a stupid argument. I'm not sure, but I think that Krugman addresses the exact criticism that Kurtz makes in his book Pop Internationalism -- though I could be wrong, and I think the argument is silly on its face.

Well, if Krugman's complaint is merely that there are non-experts who are falsely representing themselves as experts, I have no comment. I took from your post, however, that Krugman's complaint is that there are non-experts attempting to have their views prevail on topics on which they hold no expertise, by publishing their views in popular journalism.

The fair comparison for Krugman is with, for example, Safire and Will. I have some stuff up about Will's ethics here. Safire does an enormous amount of rumor-spreading and is a mouthpiece for various insiders whose motives are unknown. My feeling is that Krugman has a much higher ethical and intellectual standard than either of the two.

Another example of double standard is the consulting money Krugman took from Enron before he was a columnist. A number of hacks who saw nothing wrong with George Bush's massive entanglements with Enron (which have been occulted by Cheney's refusal to release documents) waxed indignant at Krugman's involvement.

We're all partisan, but when loud partisan criticisms don't pass the smell test for relevance, accuracy and significance you have to ask whether the criticisms are made in good faith.

Likewise, Krugman is partisan on his issue, but no more so than Will, Safire, Michael Kelly, etc al. And in point of fact, not only is it not wrong for a columnist to be highly partisan, for our two-party system to work at all we need partisans in the media. Consensus is to be worked out through struggle, not declared right off in the beginning (which is what happens in one-party states).

And so finally, when one of the few openly liberal (and not really very, he's a Clinton man), openly Democratic spokesman in a media dominated by moderates, cynics, game-players, and conservatives comes under such heavy, relentless attack, you again have to ask about the good faith of the attackers. As Alterman's book is now telling everyone, the media is NOT liberal, and people who complain about liberals in the media are really angry that the liberal point of view can be heard at all. I find this highly inauspicious and more or less treasonous (word I learned from Ann Coulter).
"Liberal Media Bias"

Yes Krugman is writing about the inherent flaws he perceives in public policy for a popular audience. He presumably hopes that the awareness of these flaws would infuence how the public perceives and accepts that public policy. This does not make him a policy entrepreneur, any more than Robert Barro or Gary Becker writing a general economic policy column in Business Week makes Barro or Becker a policy entrepreneur.

His argument with the policy entrepreneur crowd was that they were writing about and influencing public policy decisions that were well beyond their expertise using their administration or think-tank credentials as proof of legitimacy. So I guess the bottom line is that in my reading of Krugman, the following categorization holds:

Policy Entrepreneurs: Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner, Ira Magaziner, Bob Bartley, Jude Wanniski, Steven Moore

Non Policy Entrepreneurs: Glenn Hubbard, Brad De Long, Gary Becker, Bob Barro, Milton Friedman.

The only cases where the line got blurred was Lester Thurow, who Krugman seemed to detest and categorize as a policy entrepreneur. Also maybe the latter day incarnation of Robert Mundell after he was bitten by the gold bug or was it the supply side bug.

Sorry if my earlier post did not make the distinction clearer.

It's worthwhile to remember that Krugman and Jonathon Chait at TNR were alone in the punditocracy in actually trying to add up Bush's budget numbers during the 2000 election while Cokie, Russert, Dowd and everyone else were AWOL examining Gore's earth tones. Long time Krugman readers have watched the prophecized train-wreck become a reality. With only a work-a-day writing style, Krugman can seem shrill to those who are in fact mistaking his desperation for partisan rancor.

Does partisanship require printing falsehoods about ones' political opponents? Is it not accurate to state that people who print falsehoods about their political opponents, in order to do them damage, are behaving like hacks? Does the existence of other hacks mean that one's own hackery is mitigated? What does it say about the NYT editorial page that it tolerates the ridiculous hackery of both Krugman and Safire?

As to media bias, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" no longer have descriptive value, so the employment of those terms obscures more than it illuminates. It is undoubtable, however, that major media outlets have their reporting and editing done by people, and are owned by people, who prefer one major political party over another. The longtime owner of CNN, Ted Turner, no doubt preferred the Democratic Party. Rupert Murdoch prefers the Republicans. Ownership as diffuse as General Electric, or TimeWarner, is harder to characterize, although Jack Welch no doubt leaned Republican and it wouldn't suprise me if Richard Parsons and Michael Eisner lean to the Democrats. Certainly, ownership by Disney or GE has impact on story selection; we are unlikely to see NBC Dateline running many critical stories on GE, for instance. To deny however, that reporting and editing is not influenced by the reporters' and editors' preference of one party over another is simply silly. It is even sillier to compare the influence of the Republican-preferring Fox News, controlled by Roger Ailes, and it's relatively small viewership, with the Democrat-preferring CBS Evening News, controlled by Dan Rather, with it's much larger viewership. Sure Republican preference prevails in talk radio, but unlike Dan Rather or Peter Reynolds, Rush Limbaugh has no pretense of non-partisanship. I would simply prefer that Rathers, Reynolds, and Ailes frankly acknowledge their preference (at least Ailes cannot deny his former professional associations) and further acknowledge that those preferences will be reflected in their newscasts. Similarly, if the Washington Times and the much-larger New York Times wish to operate their news pages as extensions of their editorial pages, it would be better if they simply announced that intent.

Does partisanship require printing falsehoods about ones' political opponents?

Apparently it keeps you from breaking your posts into paragraphs.

In the final sentence of the above there are at least 3 errors of fact. Not to mention that he's gliding over the fact that he didn't understand the standard form limited partnership that was Bush's group.

We went over this: using government influence for private gain is like, bad. Doesn't matter if its legal.

I don't know, Achilles, if the distinction is really there. Simply having your byline appear on the pages of a major newspaper or magazine lends legitimacy, and if you really don't think Krugman's deserved academic reputation lends legitimacy to Krugman's commentary outside his areas of expertise, and that Krugman is not aware of this, I think you are mistaken. Some people simply make more fundamentally sound arguments than others, and it is up to the reader to discern them. Frankly, I lump Krugman in with Bartley or Reich, not because Bartley or Reich measure up to Krugman's understanding of economics, but because Krugman has joined Bartley and Reich in being nearly completely agenda-driven, facts be damned. Krugman hates George W. Bush, for reasons many in this forum consider entirely justified. The result of this hatred, however, leads Krugman to abandon loyalty to facts, and to seize upon ridiculous pretexts in order to attack his nemesis. For Krugman, the need to attack supercedes any desire to provide useful analysis, or fair comparisons. This doesn't make him much different than other hacks that grace editorial pages, but talk about damning with faint praise!

Well, golly gee, Jason, we did discuss this.

If one wishes to simply say that using state power for purely personal enrichment is bad, one should simply do so.

One should not, however, dishonestly insinuate criminality when, plainly, criminality does not exist.

People who dishonestly insinuate criminality where it plainly does not exist, and then run dishonest, half-assed, retractions, in forums much smaller than the forum where one originally printed one's dishonest insinuations, can be fairly described as hacks.

One should not dishonestly represent such use of state power for purely personal enrichment as being unusual, since literally thousands of examples of such activity can be examined with the most minimal effort.

Also, it is notable when a hack objects to the use of state power for purely personal gain in one context, but supports it, or does not object to it, in another.

Will,

I don't think any of the op-ed columnists of the New York Times are hacks. All of them mail the occasional column in, all of them make the occasional slip up in their zeal to get their points across, and although none of them disguise where they stand on the political spectrum that type of partisanship does not automatically make them hacks.

I think the real hacks are journalists who apply different standards to the same policies purely because of partisanship. Krugman has criticized idiotic public policy from the left in the past and idiotic public policy from the right now. Safire may infuriate me with his insistence on the Iraq - Al Qaeda linking but he is not reluctant to criticize the administration on the Poindexter appointment to the Big Brother commission. Dowd picks on Rummy and Cheney with the same glee as she picked on Bill and Hillary.

To put it this way, my definition of hackery is intellectual dishonesty for political gain. And by that standard, the biggest hack in the United States in my opinion is not Paul Krugman or William Safire; I think it is Antonin Scalia.

Didn't Krugman retract his Thomas White charge (even though his source continues to assert its truth)? What other false charges has he made?

At some point in the not-too-distant past I found the discussions of Prof DeLong's postings to be moderately stimulating. However, I've stopped reading them because I find them repetitive and off-topic. I only raise this issue because I suspect there may be others out there who feel this way.

I happened to drop in on this discussion because I used Krugman's text for international trade, read some of his more popular books/articles, and am interested in the question Brad raises. Since I like to see popular writing by real subject-area experts, I hate to see such efforts discouraged and wondered if the motive is partisanship, envy, or something else.

What I find is a protracted squabble over Krugman's legitimacy. Whatever one thinks of the man and his work, this is simply not the issue Brad raised, and I suspect there are plenty of other places out there to have such a discussion.

I hate to complain without offering a solution, so I would suggest that people just ignore posts that stray from the topic. Perhaps their statements are completely egregious, but I suspect they're not really interested in learning something from the responses they receive, only in shifting the discussion to their pet cause. Just a suggestion, nothing more.

(With regard to this particular discussion, perhaps the people attacking Krugman think these bloggers focus on him because they consider him beneath their standards of integrity. Fine; state your hypothesis and leave it at that. If others argue that Krugman is beyond reproach, THEN maybe it's worth having a discussion about Krugman's credibility.)

It is even sillier to compare the influence of the Republican-preferring Fox News, controlled by Roger Ailes, and it's relatively small viewership, with the Democrat-preferring CBS Evening News, controlled by Dan Rather, with it's much larger viewership.

Who is the CBS left-wing equivalent of Hannity or O'Reily? Who speaks for the unions or advocates for poor children on CBS? Name the CBS pundit who debunked the GOP spin machine and media wurlitzer of lies and misrepresentations about Al Gore during the last election (invented the internet, love canal, love story, summers on the farm, etc etc)? Which CBS pundit explained how Bush's social security proposals were 1 TRILLION dollars short? If CBS is under the control of Democrat partisans, why are they keeping so quiet?

I do agree Will, as I stated before, that the Rangers story was one where Krugman pushed too far: 'George Bush child of privilege who never had to work too hard to make a buck' is a different story from 'George Bush, sitting governor who will influence public policy for a buck'.

I also agree that PK's dislike of Bush is responsible for pushing him over the edge on occasions like this.

But the central fact remains that Krugman attacks Bush primarily because he believes that Bush is fundamentally dishonest in presenting his economic policies. No one else in the popular press calls Bush on this dishonesty so Krugman rails on it every chance he gets. In my opinion, it would be foolish to let instances like the White affair or the Rangers affair (both of which he published retractions on BTW) detract from the substance of the central argument: that this is an administration that is willing to exploit economic naivete to pass bad policies whose effects will be very hard to undo.

In order to avoid being accurately labeled a hack, one must be slavishly loyal to the facts, and even-handed in their treatment of similar behavior. Failure to have such loyalty to truth reveals one's writing to be unworthy of trust, which begs the question of why the reader should spend his finite time perusing the work. Of course, nobody's perfect, and everyone falls short of the standards of honesty that one should aspire to. When the dishonesty is so plain and easily avoidable, however, it calls into question the writer's intent, and such dishonesty is particularly notable when one of the writer's chief complaints regarding his nemeis is dishonesty.

As to Scalia, he is the holder of great political power, as are all Supreme Court Justices, Members of Congress, and Presidents. The holder of great political power is nearly by definition a hack, particularly in a polity as large as this. Such people are necessary, but they should always be held at arm's length, and viewed with suspicion.

Well, I would have more faith in Krugman's commentary regarding Bush's dishonest economic rhetoric , if Krugman devoted as much vitriol at dishonest rhetoric employed in pursuit of goals Krugman favors. Gore's 200 page economic manifesto was chock-full of lies, particularly in regards to projected costs of new entitlement spending, but because Krugman favored Gore's election, and generally supports more state power employed for the purpose of wealth redistribution, he was far more tolerant of dishonest rhetoric employed in pursuit of those goals. In other words, Krugman is just like most other pundit/hacks in his willingness to tolerate dishonest rhetoric; it all depends on what goals are to be attained with the dishonest rhetoric.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what was in Gore's economic manifesto outside of the lockbox (and you wonder why the man lost). But I'll go take a look and would comment but that may invoke the DeLong kill rule for being off topic.

Repeatedly, Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong have helped me to better understand and take a stance on what might otherwise have seemed confusing economic poilicies and issues. They explain themselves clearly and in detail and are willing to be courageous in addressing issues in a way I find far too unusual in the media. Listening to an economic policy debate even on PBS is so often sterile. To have Krugman and DeLong write so often and so cogently and boldly is truly wonderful. The best of analysis.

>> instances like the White affair or the Rangers affair (both of which he published retractions on BTW)<<

achilles, this is flatly false.

Krugman did not retract either story. And in the case of the Texas Rangers LP, when corrected publicly, he repeated the charges; saying this made it "worse". Followed by at least three more errors of fact.

Two instance of Krugman LIBELING people. In both, the facts demolish his charges. Yet no retractions.

"...to call a spade a shovel..."

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a spade and a shovel, or even that there is one, shouldn't be allowed out in charge of a metaphor like that.

A spade is a digging tool, with a cutting and prying action for firm material. A shovel is a scooping tool, for loose material. They have blade shapes, handles, and leverage to match. You can get a glimpse of the differences by comparing a dessert spoon and a soup spoon, since these have similar differences of function.

Patrick - He definitely did retract the White comment.

I know that the White remarks were retracted as follows:

"In a column on Sept. 17, I wrote about evidence that Thomas White, the secretary of the Army, was well aware that the Enron division of which he was vice chairman before taking that position, Enron Energy Services, was deliberately and improperly concealing large financial losses. In that column I cited a February 2001 e-mail message that I said was written by Mr. White. Since then Mr. White has said that he does not recall writing such a message, and the authenticity of the message has been questioned. As long as the authenticity of the message remains in doubt, it should be considered unsubstantiated. I erred by citing it in my column."

That is a retraction.

I recall reading something in which Krugman acknowledged he had got his facts about the Rangers wrong as well. But after Patrick's skepticism I now realized that it seems he retracted on his web page and not in his column. I apologize for my mistake in saying he retracted both errors: Krugman was very wrong not to retract his comments about the Rangers in a column. The "sitting governor" words were very powerful in his original piece and he should not weasel out of that one by saying something like 'I was just trying to point out that Bush was a crony capitalist'.

Will Allen: The distinction between liberal and conservative has no meaning only for those who believe (and hope) that liberalism is dead forever. Because, while there are some Dems on TV (many of them fake, however) they are moderate Dems. Liberals have very few spokesmen,

Even your claim that the media are about evenly divided between Dems and Repubs is, to me, suspect. The Democratic Tendencies of the accused media seem very dilute to me.

And -- if there were equally aggressive attacks on Safire and Will as there have been on Krugman, I'd cut a deal. I actually believe that Krugman is ethically and intellectually far superior to the two of them, but I'm willing to let that slide.

But the idea that might happen is a joke. It won't. And the reason is that the attack on Krugman is in no way about any of the issues raised against him (i.e., his gross. almost criminal misreading of the Argentina/Cato situation). The attacks on Krugman are attempts to intimidate liberals and drive them from the airwaves.

Correction: "drive them from the media". Krugman isn't so much of a TV guy.

Two instance of Krugman LIBELING people.

No, he didn't, as nothing he said could be successfully prosecuted under libel law in the US.

Zizka, when the term "liberal" comes to be defined, as I think you likely do, as a system of belief that entails the expansion of state power, and therefore the reduction of individual liberty, far beyond what is needed to secure a functioning, prosperous, society, and "conservative" is defined, as it is by many self-identified "conservatives" as a belief system that is consistent with the expansion of state power far beyond the historical norm, the terms have ceased to have meaning. For instance, John Ashcroft and Ted Kennedy support the War on Drugs with equal fervor, despite the wholesale expansion of Federal power that should offend Ashcroft, and the criminalization of the private behavior of millions of ordinary citizens that should offend Kennedy. The words "liberal" and "conservative" are thus meaningless. Politicians who label themselves thus are in reality usually just immersed in a political battle to more effectively bribe their constituents than their political opponents are able to. Do you really think principle informs the decision to funnel subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland, or to transfer the wages of a Dairy Queen cashier to Warren Buffett?

So Patrick, I retracted my claim that Krugman retracted both stories. Are you going to ever retract your claim that Krugman retracted neither story?

Jason -- what happened to "It's, you know, bad." Doesn't that apply to libel too?

The problem with Krugman is that he never, ever picks another topic. Aren't there any stories of interest to an economist that don't involve the Evil Bush Administration? Like, you know, Japan, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, things that are within his areas of expertise? Things the rest of us might like to learn about, and that no one else could write as well? Any hack could write his current column; just chop up the latest white papers from the liberal think tanks, gloss it up with a couple of technical-sounding concepts, and serve -- except that no one who wasn't a Princeton economist on the NYT page would be allowed to pick the same topic for his column 100 times a year.

I partially agree. On the one hand, I share Jane's wish to see more Krugman columns on international topics.

On the other hand, if you look at what Krugman has written over the last 3 months there are columns about the Space Shuttle, Japan, North Korea, Iraq, Dividend Tax Reform, Telecom Deregulation, Trent Lott, John DiIulio, The Clean Air Act, Federal employee privatization, the paradox of voting, Harvey Pitt and the death of Paul Wellstone.

Hardly constitutes the 'same topic' 100 times a year. Now the word Bush appears in virtually everyone of them, but they are covering a varierty of topics.

And the administration has been conspicuously absent from the international economic scene anyway: was there even a mention of trade in this years SOTU? Are we really involved in any international economic policymaking these days? It seems like the economic news is all about domestic policy: tax cuts and deficits, and I am frankly unsurprised that the majority of the columns focus on that.

OK, Krugman is shrill; Krugman slandered the Cato institute; Krugman is partisan; and now, Krugman is monotonous. Count on Jane to come up with the killing blow.

As far as monotonous goes, try Michael Kelly. Or Krauthammer.

Sorry, the reason for the hue and cry about Krugman is that he is an opponent of Bush. Everything else he's accused of is quite normal on the editorial pages, and Krugman is better than most.

People on this site should show some consideration for the site owner. DeLong, unpaid and out of office, has been telling us for months now that Bush's economic policies are senseless, dishonest, and disastrous. Same as Krugman says.

Maybe the reason why we get this shrillness and unesthetic repetion is that a.) these charges are true, and b.) these charges are important. So Krugman (who is, after all, an economist) doesn't feel like lightening up his mix with George-Will-type shit like philosophical reflections on baseball, and the like.

>> I recall reading something in which Krugman acknowledged he had got his facts about the Rangers wrong as well. But after Patrick's skepticism I now realized that it seems he retracted on his web page and not in his column.<<

He didn't retract -- he compounded the charges with more howling errors. Here's what he wrote on his web page...

"They assert something I didn't know: that he was granted a 12 percent share of the profits despite having put up only 2 percent of the money back in 1989, when the deal was initialized, rather than in 1998, when the franchise was sold. Assuming this is true - it would be nice to see the contract - does this make everything clean and above-board? Actually, if anything it makes things worse. In fact, I suspect that the peculiarity of that contract, if it exists, is why we're only hearing about it now: had it been public knowledge at the time it would have raised a lot of questions...

"One more thing: as I understand it, by giving Bush an ownership share rather than paying him for his services, the partners ensured not just that he would get rich, but that his income would be taxed as capital gains - i.e., at a relatively low rate. "

Four more bad errors right there. This should be really embarrassing to any kind of professional, but he still has it posted.

(1) There wasn't a "contract" that gave Bush 12%, there was a partnership. Dubya, as one of the general partners, got his return only *after* all the limited partners received their guaranteed return. And the general partners assumed all risk of loss. (See: Montreal Expos). As an analogy, the general partners owned the common stock while the others owned the preferred stock. Except the general partners also assume all management responsibility, while the other partners are only passive investors. An economist might be expected to understand "risk/return".

(2) As to "the peculiarity of that contract, if it exists" -- well, virtually all sports franchises are structured this way, as are 1.9 *million* other such "peculiar" partnerships that exist in the US.

(3) "this is why we're only hearing about it now: had it been public knowledge at the time it would have raised a lot of questions".
Well, no. As Mickey Kaus was so rude as to point out, the whole arrangement had been reported in the Texas press years earlier. (No doubt it was jealousy that drove Mickey to be so unfair and mean-spirited as to point out this error.)

(4) "by giving Bush an ownership share rather than paying him for his services, the partners ensured not just that he would get rich, but that his income would be taxed as capital gains - i.e., at a relatively low rate."

Krugman has it bass ackwards again. All of a partnership's income is taxed to its partners as it is earned at top ordinary income tax rates -- by the nature of a partnership it *can't* be accumulated and transferred for a capital gain to avoid tax. K somehow seems to be fantasizing here that this was some sort of corporation and Dubya was receiving shares in lieu of salary -- and he's still got this fantasy posted!

All this indicates that for all his brilliance in the academic ivory tower, K doesn't have a clue how businesses function in the real world -- I mean, mistaking the structure of 1.9 million partnerships for a hidden "peculiar contract", and thinking partnerships are a capital gain play. ;-) Yet how many columns does he write about businesses? If he doesn't know how even a simple partnership works is it surprising he screwed up with Enron and White?

BTW, this has all been posted for six months now. No corrections yet.

Crumudgeon is right. This forum is a waste of time. Too many morons. Sorry I came back.

Krugman gets attacked because he's a relative liberal. What he says about Bush's wretched economic plans is almost all true. In the world of Safire and George Will, the inaccuracies people are ranting about are small change.

There are people who can't learn and can't teach, but they can keep standing and keep talking forever, and for them that is victory.

Jason -- what happened to "It's, you know, bad." Doesn't that apply to libel too?

I have no idea why he never ran a correction of the "he was a sitting governor" thing, and he really should; maybe they thought the letter the partners wrote to the NYT was considered sufficient. It still doesn't meet the standard for libel; if you want to argue he was sloppy, go right ahead. Note that doing so would make him pretty much the only damn columnist in the US to do so - when was the last time you saw, say, Safire or Novak correct *anything*?

But it doesn't change his point: that Bush built his fortune by trading his government access for private gain.

Jim:

Are you sure LP's don't pay out capital gains income? I don't know much about it, but this TurboTax article implies they can.

The relevant Krugman bit: One more thing: as I understand it, by giving Bush an ownership share rather than paying him for his services, the partners ensured not just that he would get rich, but that his income would be taxed as capital gains - i.e., at a relatively low rate.

An economist might be expected to understand "risk/return".

Is getting 12% of the profits when you put up 2% of the capital a standard deal, even when you're last in line? I thought the justification for this was that the low capital partner brings non-monetary assets to the deal; business skills, government connections, whatever.

Well, no. As Mickey Kaus was so rude as to point out, the whole arrangement had been reported in the Texas press years earlier.

In 1998, yes, but in 1989 when the deal was signed?

And Jim, none of those objections change that basic point. "Fundamentally right, gets the details wrong" is a pretty weak criticism, and its the criticism conservatives have of Paul *every time*. "Sure, anyone can see he's correct on the substance, but, but, but....."

Oh, I just found this. Bush *did* count his Rangers payout as a long-term capital gain, taxed at 20% instead of 39%.

Paging GT:

" Intellectual Honesty. Without it no discussion is possible."

Or is it that English is not achilles' native tongue? As Jim Glass has clearly demonstrated Krugman did NOT retract the libel against the Texas Rangers partnership, instead he reasserted it in STRONGER form.

Nor is what Krugman wrote, and achilles quoted, a "retraction" of his charges that Thomas White participated in multimillion dollar stock fraud. That libel is unretracted.

And libel it is, contrary to Counselor McCoullough. Krugman wouldn't even be able to hide behind the "public figure" fig leaf, as there is pretty clearly not an absence of malice.

Jason, is btw, libeling Bush too. There was no use of government influence for gain in the Texas Rangers deal. It was a business, it made money, according to the rules (as appalling as they are, which Krugman missed). Just the way the St. Louis Rams, the Baltimore Ravens, Seattle Mariners, Colorado Rockies, and on and on did.

Also, Jason has completely misunderstood Jim Glass's remarks about capital gains. Typical.

Paul Krugman says:
"by giving Bush an ownership share rather than paying him for his services, the partners ensured not just that he would get rich, but that his income would be taxed as capital gains - i.e., at a relatively low rate."

Jim Glass says:
"Krugman has it bass ackwards again. All of a partnership's income is taxed to its partners as it is earned at top ordinary income tax rates -- by the nature of a partnership it *can't* be accumulated and transferred for a capital gain to avoid tax. K somehow seems to be fantasizing here that this was some sort of corporation and Dubya was receiving shares in lieu of salary -- and he's still got this fantasy posted!"

Jason McCullough posts a PDF file that shows that the income from the Rangers sale was in fact taxed as capital gains.

Okay so I may just a regular dumb-ass who does not understand the tax law or the English language as well as the tag-team duo of Glass and Sullivan but that means one of two possibilities:

1. Krugman was right and Jim Glass was wrong. This income was not taxed at the top income tax rate as Jim Glass claimed.

2. The PDF file that Jason posted was a fake, ergo Jim Glass may still be right and Krugman may still be wrong.

It seems like these are the only two possibilities so please do enlighten me which of the two it is.

There is a third possibility that the Rangers income came in two payments: one of which was taxed as income and the other as capital gains in which case both Glass and Krugman are right. But I don't see the income appearing anywhere else on this tax form.

Note that the fourth possibility that Patrick suggested that Jason misunderstood the tax law is ridiculous and a mere smokescreen since Jim, Krugman and the 1040 file are all very clear in what they state and that is pretty much all we need to untangle this. Jason's understanding of tax law (which he was quick to downplay) has nothing to do with anything. This is not a tax course on partnerships, just a simple factual question about whether a specific piece of revenue was taxed as income or capital gains.

Patrick I realize that your style is to throw around lots of insults and quotes but I hope you will (or Jim will) answer the SPECIFIC question I have posed (is it explanation #1 or explanation #2).

>>Jim:
Are you sure LP's don't pay out capital gains income? I don't know much about it, but this TurboTax article implies they can. <<

"by giving Bush an ownership share rather than paying him for his services, the partners ensured ... that his income would be taxed as capital gains"
... is just false. Note the "rather than". This refers to the old ploy of accumulating operating income in the business instead of taking it as salary, taking equity instead, then selling the equity it for capital gain. You can't do that with a partnership because all its operating income is taxed at top rates to the partners whether taken as salary or not.

Your Turbotax reference is about capital gain income received *by the partnership* being passed through to the partners as capital gain. It is but there is no "rather than" there, that's gotta happen for *all* the partners. MLB requires teams to be owned by partnerships so that's that. And what long-term capital gain income does a baseball team have anyhow? It's not selling real estate. (This is one reason why real estate is so often owned through LPs). When the team was sold of course a capital gain resulted, as it would however the team was owned -- that was sale of equity, not a final "payout" as you described it, which would be a distribution of profits.

>> Is getting 12% of the profits when you put up 2% of the capital a standard deal, even when you're last in line? <<

There are many LPs where a general partner with 1% equity gets 30%, 50%, 70% of the profits, when there are any. Do you find it upsetting that common shareholders in a corporation get 100% of the profits after the preferred shareholders are paid off?

>>I thought the justification for this was that the low capital partner brings non-monetary assets to the deal; business skills, government connections, whatever.<<

No, no. That's what one gets from reading blog arguments. ;-)

Any limited partner can bring in assets or contacts or whatever. The general partner, unlike common shareholders in a corp, assumes *personal liability* for all the debts and legal obligations of the partnership. If it goes south he can lose his house, car, and everything else in personal bankruptcy. And being "last in line" to sign up as a general partner doesn't reduce that personal liability one bit. ;-( Of course, common shareholders who get 100% of the profits of a corp are insulated from all such downside risk, so one might think general partners deserve a better deal on the upside than they get.

To summarize: Limited partners incur no risk other than to their capital contribution, have no management responsibility, and get paid first. General partners incur personal liability for all the obligations of the business, have responsibility for running it, and get paid last. Does risk/reward tell you who should get the largest share of the upside? If it goes to the general partners, does that sound like a "gift" to you?

>> "Fundamentally right, gets the details wrong" is a pretty weak criticism, <<

And that's a pretty weak rationalization for "fundamentally wrong, all facts wrong from beginning to end, no understanding of the situation, no effort to gain any that would interfere with preconceived notions"

Also, "It doesn't matter if he gets the facts (details) wrong ..." seems a petty weak defense in particular of a guy who, when *others* get facts wrong (or he thinks they do), calls out "Liar! Liar!" so often that his editor had to tell him to stop using the word.

Is this how he wrote his academic papers? "Trust me that I know the truth, if my facts are wrong it doesn't matter"?

>> it doesn't change his point: that Bush built his fortune by trading his government access for private gain. <<

Sure, as has every other owner of a sports team with a government financed stadium today, which is about all of them. And Al Gore is who he is today for no reason but that he was the son of his daddy, who was very influential in government too. Is that so upsetting?

But consider this: Bush & Partners didn't actually own the Arlington stadium, the state does. And it was built as an area development project (boondogle though those often are) -- it didn't destroy going businesses for the ball team's sake. It was a legislatively approved public project.

Now consider this: Right now, Krugman's own employer, the privately owned for-profit NY Times, is using eminent domain to condemn existing businesses in a big swath of midtown Manhattan to build a new office building for itself that it will own. Experts say that by using its local political clout to do so it is getting a 25% discount on the land, worth millions of dollars -- which goes right to its for-profit bottom line. And since midtown Manhattan is fully occupied, it is forcing dozens of other smaller businesses involuntarily out of business to do so. And the legislature has nothing to say about it -- it's purely an inside deal.

See, e.g.: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock102902.asp

*Here's* an abuse of using government access for truly private gain! And to the extent the Times benefits, Krugman himself stands to benefit personally, as what benefits the employer benefits its employees.

Now, since this sort of thing offends him so deeply when it occurs among Texas Republicans, do you think it might bother him when his very own employer in NYC engages in a much worse variety of it? Do you think he should maybe write a column about it? Think he ever will?

It could actually be a very good column on *economics* of the sort that he used to write at Slate -- and he is officially still the Times's "economcics columnist", after all. But since there's no way to turn it to bash Republicans, I'm not holding my breath.

Jim,

Thanks for your new post, combined with Jason's useful PDF file, I think it helps me understand the situation more clearly now than after your first post. Bush's income during the time the partnership was in effect would have been taxed at the top rate but his proceeds from the SALE of the partnership would be taxed as capital gains. So in effect it was point 3) that I was raising in my post.

It seems like Krugman's claim pretty much boils down to a charge of generic crony capitalism: his charge is that Bush was given a piece of the Rangers by well-connected people in Texas, a piece that was (debatably) in excess of what he brought to the table. But as you pointed out it is not up to anyone but the partners to judge what the appropriate payoffs/contributions ratios is given that they take the risk. You described this partnership, as not unusual, and I tend to agree. As I said before, I think Krugman got it wrong when he tried to make this into a case of political corruption and he should have apologized for it in his column. My guess is that he tried to get his non-aplogy into the Times and they would not accept it, but that's mere speculation. My guess is he's too stubborn to write a proper apology and that's just too bad because it spills over into the credibility of many things that he says in which he's correct. On this one he is very wrong in his non-retraction.

It was the dishonesty and shoddiness of the (non) retraction that convinced me Krugman was really just another commonplace hack, and should be attributed as much credibility as that species. Anybody can make a mistake, but when one exerts oneself to compound the error in this fashion, it can only be concluded that the writer should no longer be taken seriously, for obviously the writer is no longer interested in anything but deceiving the reader, which is sadly ironic in this instance, given that the writer's major complaint against his nemesis is dishonesty.

Jim, you fail to understand. When one is Paul Krugman, receiving money from an organization which uses state power to grab private property for purely personal benefit is perfectly unremarkable. When one isn't Paul Krugman, receiving money from an organization that uses state power to grab private property for purely personal benefit is a travesty, and deserves insinuations of criminality. The conclusion? It is better to be Paul Krugman, as opposed to not being Paul Krugman. I hope this clears thing up. We poor readers, of course, are the better for having been given a glimpse of such penetrating economic analysis. Oh well, another blessing to be thankful for....

There was no use of government influence for gain in the Texas Rangers deal.

Yeah, that whole condemnation of private property thing was a sideshow. As was getting the state government to pass a law making the specific type of condemnation they needed allowable. As was getting the state government to pass a law making the specific type of project taxation they needed to build it allowable.

No, no. That's what one gets from reading blog arguments. ;-)

Heh.

Now, since this sort of thing offends him so deeply when it occurs among Texas Republicans, do you think it might bother him when his very own employer in NYC engages in a much worse variety of it? Do you think he should maybe write a column about it? Think he ever will?

So you're telling me the NYT doing this is the same as the son of a sitting president doing it? Yes, the NYT doing it is bad, but nowhere near as much so, and it's changing the subject: Bush's career is an unbroken string of crony capitalism, failing upwards over and over using political connections.

And since when is trying to get yourself fired (hey, I'll write an article about my corrupt employer!) a job requirement for columnists?

When the team was sold of course a capital gain resulted, as it would however the team was owned -- that was sale of equity, not a final "payout" as you described it, which would be a distribution of profits.

But do general partners, in general, receive no money until the final sale, ensuring they get it all in a capital gains payout, like Bush did? If so, then Krugman got it wrong, but if not, well.

There are many LPs where a general partner with 1% equity gets 30%, 50%, 70% of the profits, when there are any. Do you find it upsetting that common shareholders in a corporation get 100% of the profits after the preferred shareholders are paid off?

Your description of the LP process is convincing; fair enough, Krugman blew it. However, that *still* doesn't change that his characterization of it as crony capitalism is accurate. Also, why the hell did they hire Bush, who up to that point had a long history of failed businesses, if not for his political connections?

Furthermore, if these suddenly-important standards were applied to conservative columnists, the national review would send out 50 blank pages every month, and all of Safire's NYT columns would be whitespace.

"And libel it is, contrary to Counselor McCoullough. Krugman wouldn't even be able to hide behind the "public figure" fig leaf, as there is pretty clearly not an absence of malice.

Jason, is btw, libeling Bush too."

It sounds like Jason understands libel law better than you do. The "public figure" doctrine is hardly a fig leaf; the right to criticize public figures (particularly politicians) is fundamental to the First Amendment. Even if one gets things wrong.

With respect to White, he would need to prove that he did not know Enron was deliberately concealing losses. Krugman might be right about that.

What we're seeing now as the various Krugman defenders come to dimly realize what Jim Glass and I have numerous times posted here, is the poisonous effect of Krugman's columns. The false accusations are still (inchoately) accepted.

For instance:

>> However, that *still* doesn't change that his characterization of it as crony capitalism is accurate. Also, why the hell did they hire Bush, who up to that point had a long history of failed businesses, if not for his political connections? <<

I've pointed Jason to a Washington Post article before that explains the above to be complete baloney. Maybe achilles has missed those posts, since he too is still trying to sell this "crony capitalism" crap. So, for about the fourth time, Krugman is lying. No one "hired" George W Bush, and no one "ensured" he would become rich.

Bush and friends from his Yale-Harvard days put together a group of investors and made an offer to buy the Texas Rangers. The Commissioner of Baseball, Peter Ueberroth nixed the bid--so much for using Bush's political connections--because Ueberroth claimed he wanted Texans to own the team, and Bush didn't have enough Texans in his group.

Then Ueberroth attempted to construct another group of wealthy Texans, on his own, and he fell flat on his face. These Texas businessmen said they were not interested. Only then did Ueberroth introduce his preferred group to Bush, and Bush then went on to succeed where Ueberroth had failed; i.e. Bush convinced them to participate in his group.

It was Bush's deal from beginning to end. It's called entrepreneurship. Bush then took on the failed team and turned it into a pennant contender. He knew he needed a better stadium to play in, so he sounded out several communities around Dallas, and selected Arlington from the several offers he received. The stadium was put up for a vote, and passed. Anyone wishing to argue against it had the publicly available information right there to use against it.

I happen to be appalled by the way taxpayers are willing to finance private businesses in this way, but that is the way you have to compete in professional sports these days. You have to play the game according to the rules, or you don't play. (Just as one had to sell into California's designed electricity market on the rules as they were established.)

End of story. Bush made a failing team a success, and he and his partners then sold at a profit. Just as dozens of other owners of professional sports franchises have done, and will do in the future.

You can read all about in the Washington Post, The American Spectator, and various Texas papers. But I don't expect this to ever penetrate the thick skulls of some habitues of this blog.

Well some of us have thick skulls, others have thin skins.

But, your description of how rich Texas guys who did not want to put their money into buying the Rangers were suddenly energized into spending millions of dollars into buying the Rangers, after they met Bush, really does clear up any remaining questions I had about 'crony capitalism'

And I am truly awed by your description of how Bush single-handedly took on the 'failed' team and "turned it into a contender" and then persuaded communities that previously had not had the vision to invest in a stadium for the Rnagers to do so. Wow, this does change my impression of Bush , who knew he was a business genius.

Did he win 20 games for the Rangers as well? (Oh wait, its the Rangers, no one ever wins 20 games for them, not even Bush).

End of story. Bush made a failing team a success, and he and his partners then sold at a profit. Just as dozens of other owners of professional sports franchises have done, and will do in the future.

Yeah, his history of failing at everything he touched makes this pretty plausible.

Just because Krugman blew a column doesn't make Bush clean.

And since when is trying to get yourself fired (hey, I'll write an article about my corrupt employer!) a job requirement for columnists?

It seems to be pretty widely accepted around here that it's a job requirement for Glenn Hubbard; what's special about columnists?

I want to thank achilles and Jason for validating my prediction. I'm not telling a story, I'm repeating historical facts that anyone could find out for themselves by reading the Washington Post.

Why do you two find reality so difficult?

I think Jason and I are having trouble because we lack the imagination needed to visualize the boy wonder as business genius. But perhaps a few more stories about the great man's business acumen will spark our imagination.

I can't believe I read through this whole thread. You guys are crazy. Krugman's written 100's of columns and the best the rightists can do is rail about the inaccuracies in one of them. And the leftists waste their time arguing back. Right side: make some criticisms of substance. Left side: stop worring about the right side.

postmistress is missing the obvious. This thread is titled "Origins of anti-Krugmanism", and claims that it is some sort of irrational hatred (or jealousy on the part of a few people who want his job). I and a few others are providing evidence to the contrary. Evidence that is stoutly being ignored (or denied) by the Pauldolators.

Take achilles--Pleeeeze!--he's just bound and determined to ignore the actual history of Bush and the Texas Rangers. It just couldn't be that Bush was a success where others had failed. Because...he's...George W. Bush, and Krugman says he couldn't possibly have accomplished anything.

There are plenty of other examples I could cite of a cavalier attitude toward the truth on the part of Mr. Krugman and his fans. Say, that Stanley Tool is guilty of "tax evasion" for doing their fiduciary duty of maximizing profits. Or, that Alan Greenspan said he could (and should) have popped the stock market bubble early on. But, when the achilles and Jason's of the world are stuck on the Texas Rangers, we can hardly move forward.

So, in the continuing quest to introduce the facts into the discussion, here's more from the Washington Post, July 31, 1999, that Paul Krugman denied had been made public until he raised the issue in 2002:

--------quote--------
By [1989 Bush] was already a part-owner of the Rangers, a deal signed on April 21. His team of investors had purchased 86 percent of the team for about $75 million. He and [William] DeWitt raised half of the money, with [Roland] Betts being the main investor; the other half came from a group led by Texas financiers Richard Rainwater and Edward "Rusty" Rose III. Rainwater and Rose had joined with Bush after Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth concluded that Bush and DeWitt hadn't raised enough Texas money.

Bush and Rose, it was agreed, would have joint power in running the franchise, with Rose behind the scenes and Bush serving as the ownership's public face. Bush's total investment eventually would reach $606,302. For putting the deal together and running the club, Bush would receive an additional 10 percent return when the team was sold.

Baseball experts say the new ownership team enhanced the value of the franchise. Gross revenue more than doubled from $28 million to $62 million in a few years, and after the new stadium opened in 1994, it nearly doubled again – to $116 million last year. The club went from a mom-and-pop operation with 30 front-office employees and a consistently mediocre record on the field since moving to Texas from Washington in 1971 to a major corporation that now has 170 employees. In 1996, the Rangers made it to the playoffs for the first time, ultimately losing to the New York Yankees.

[snip]

Other team owners and former Ranger employees say Bush brought an instinctive feel and passion for the sport to his job, and managed to garner loyalty from players as well as hot dog vendors – all of whom he knew by name.

"You know, this guy fired me," said Bobby Valentine, a former Ranger manager now managing the New York Mets. "The honest truth is that I would campaign barefoot for him today."
--------endquote------

Can achilles handle this truth?

Oh yeah, Patrick, we all know that you are all about "moving forward". By the way a part that you did not quote from the July 31 '99 article in the Post says:

<<
Bush has often cited his efforts to put together the deal as one of the greatest accomplishments of his career. Ueberroth sees it differently. "There is no question that Rainwater and Rose were the primary investment group and I asked them to consider taking George in," Ueberroth said in an interview. "He was an asset because his father's career was going up and reaching the top. We just brought the young man over somewhat out of respect for his father.
>>

Yup, that sure sounds like the businessman Bush we have come to know and love.

Keep up the fantasy of Bush, Patrick, it sure is better than the reality of Bush.

Naughty, naughty, achilles. Immediately after what you quote, there is:

>> Several major investors disputed Ueberroth's recollection. "It was a merger of the two groups," said Gerald Haddock, Rainwater's attorney and later the Rangers general counsel. "It is a fact that Eddie Chiles wanted to give the deal to George W. . . . Without George, this group could not have done the deal." <<

IOW, just what I have been telling you all along. Ueberroth has no support from anyone for his story. And how did you like the fact that Bush was credited with having the quicker intellect?:

>> Running the team together, Rose and Bush were a study in contrasts – Rose is as studied, cerebral and shy as Bush is impulsive, loquacious and brazen. "George is very intuitive, very quick to come to the path he wants to take," said Rose. "And I'm pretty plodding. Never in our partnership did we have a disagreement over the paths. But George came up to a path in 15 minutes, and I never was able to come with the path until three days. . . . Sometimes he called me daily and I'd say, well, I still got the abacus whirling." <<

Not to mention that Bush was seen by his peers as so successful some wanted him to become Commissioner:

>> In 1992, Bush was mentioned as a possible successor to Baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent after Vincent lost a vote of confidence and resigned. Bud Selig, owner of the Milwaukee Brewers and the interim commissioner, let the idea quietly die because he wanted the job permanently. He eventually got it. <<

BTW, achilles, do you have ANY business experience yourself" Even a lemonade stand in your childhood?

Patrick,

You can try to needle me all you want but I have seen too many examples on sci.econ of your sociopathic tendencies to get drawn into anything more long-drawn and pointed out than this thread with you.

So let me end by saying that I (and the budget of the United States) deeply wish that the rest of baseball had understood Bush's brilliance like you did and made him baseball commissioner for life.

For the record, I will grant you that he would have been better at that job than Bud Selig though ;)

Since when has a presentation of the facts been "sociopathic"?

I wish people like Kurz were better informed before they wrote. The phrase "policy entrepeneur
comes from Krugman's Peddling Properity (1994).
A policy entrepeneur is an individual who takes respectable social science and transeforms into
a sound bite worthy of an evening talk show or a
political rally. By this standard, there is no
wayto indict Krugman as a policy entrepeneur.

I wish people like Kurz were better informed before they wrote. The phrase "policy entrepeneur"
comes from Krugman's Peddling Properity (1994).
A policy entrepeneur is an individual who takes respectable social science and transeforms it into a sound bite worthy of an evening talk show or a political rally. By this standard, there is no way to indict Krugman as a policy entrepeneur.