Paul Krugman is a jackass (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

What truth? That the only people that have really financially benefited under Obama have been the already rich? (Sorry I had to link from HuffPo. I tried to find something less conservative for you so that you'd say it was a valid link. But..alas and alack-a-day.)

Or is it the truth that only the non-wealthy are "working" families?

The "truth" that the Democrats are for and Republicans for the rich/against the poor, perhaps? Give me a break.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Does anyone take this clown Krugman seriously?

He's a clown when he wanders off into politics, but he's a really good economist. He's completely correct about how old-fashioned IS-LM macro out-performs fancier models with micro-foundations, for example. Also, he won some award for his work on international trade a while back.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

What truth? That the only people that have really financially benefited under Obama have been the already rich? (Sorry I had to link from HuffPo. I tried to find something less conservative for you so that you'd say it was a valid link. But..alas and alack-a-day.)Or is it the truth that only the non-wealthy are "working" families?

The "truth" that the Democrats are for and Republicans for the rich/against the poor, perhaps? Give me a break.

Oooof. C'mon Andy, you're better than this.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

What truth? That the only people that have really financially benefited under Obama have been the already rich? (Sorry I had to link from HuffPo. I tried to find something less conservative for you so that you'd say it was a valid link. But..alas and alack-a-day.)Or is it the truth that only the non-wealthy are "working" families?

The "truth" that the Democrats are for and Republicans for the rich/against the poor, perhaps? Give me a break.

Oooof. C'mon Andy, you're better than this.

THAT'S your refutation?

Edit: Oh I forgot. You still look at me as some sort of "Republican" avatar.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.


Winston Churchill

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Lots of truth hurting going on I guess.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Seven years later, still right.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I guess I'll say it again...

I'm, in general, in favor of increased capital gains taxes and more tax brackets in the upper levels of income.

Not that it'll do more than symbolically decrease the rich/poor gap but I'd like it as a sign that the influence peddling among the super rich is waning.

A guy can dream..

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

What truth? That the only people that have really financially benefited under Obama have been the already rich? (Sorry I had to link from HuffPo. I tried to find something less conservative for you so that you'd say it was a valid link. But..alas and alack-a-day.)

That's not an Obama thing. That's been the trend since 1980. Second graph here is pretty interesting (push play).

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

What truth? That the only people that have really financially benefited under Obama have been the already rich? (Sorry I had to link from HuffPo. I tried to find something less conservative for you so that you'd say it was a valid link. But..alas and alack-a-day.)

That's not an Obama thing. That's been the trend since 1980. Second graph here is pretty interesting (push play).

It's not strictly an Obama thing, but the trend has continued. All I was pointing out was that TGZ's "truth hurts" comment was nonsensical.

The "truth" is that our government has done a pretty poor job for all of us for quite some time. But TGZ labors under the idea that I'm some sort of water carrier for the Republican party.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

What truth? That the only people that have really financially benefited under Obama have been the already rich? (Sorry I had to link from HuffPo. I tried to find something less conservative for you so that you'd say it was a valid link. But..alas and alack-a-day.)

That's not an Obama thing. That's been the trend since 1980. Second graph here is pretty interesting (push play).

It's not strictly an Obama thing, but the trend has continued. All I was pointing out was that TGZ's "truth hurts" comment was nonsensical.

The "truth" is that our government has done a pretty poor job for all of us for quite some time. But TGZ labors under the idea that I'm some sort of water carrier for the Republican party.

I wonder how I ever got that impression.

While Obama has been unable to reverse problematic trends that MT correctly points out have troubled us for more than 3 decades, the numbers mentioned in the "Naked Capitalist" blog post from 2012 do not include any of the policies that Obama has put in place to assist those on the lower end of the income scale.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

What truth? That the only people that have really financially benefited under Obama have been the already rich? (Sorry I had to link from HuffPo. I tried to find something less conservative for you so that you'd say it was a valid link. But..alas and alack-a-day.)

That's not an Obama thing. That's been the trend since 1980. Second graph here is pretty interesting (push play).

It's not strictly an Obama thing, but the trend has continued. All I was pointing out was that TGZ's "truth hurts" comment was nonsensical.

The "truth" is that our government has done a pretty poor job for all of us for quite some time. But TGZ labors under the idea that I'm some sort of water carrier for the Republican party.

I wonder how I ever got that impression.

While Obama has been unable to reverse problematic trends that MT correctly points out have troubled us for more than 3 decades, the numbers mentioned in the "Naked Capitalist" blog post from 2012 do not include any of the policies that Obama has put in place to assist those on the lower end of the income scale.

Summarized: "Everything good that happens is because of Obama. Everything bad that happens is not Obama's fault but somebody else's. It's impossible for Obama to do any wrong, so therefore, YOU must be wrong."

ETA: People still take Krugman seriously? Wow.

 

[Jack White]

Does anyone take this clown Krugman seriously?

He's a clown when he wanders off into politics, but he's a really good economist. He's completely correct about how old-fashioned IS-LM macro out-performs fancier models with micro-foundations, for example. Also, he won some award for his work on international trade a while back.

I don't care about awards, so that means nothing. Obama, for example, won a peace award.

What is important is that he is NOT a really good economist. His job is to pose as a court economist at the New York Times and be a shill for statist policies that destroy wealth and freedom.

 

[shadrap]

Does anyone take this clown Krugman seriously?

He's a clown when he wanders off into politics, but he's a really good economist. He's completely correct about how old-fashioned IS-LM macro out-performs fancier models with micro-foundations, for example. Also, he won some award for his work on international trade a while back.

I don't care about awards, so that means nothing. Obama, for example, won a peace award.

What is important is that he is NOT a really good economist. His job is to pose as a court economist at the New York Times and be a shill for statist policies that destroy wealth and freedom.

Nice post.

Thanks.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

But TGZ labors under the idea that I'm some sort of water carrier for the Republican party.

I wonder how I ever got that impression.

If you're thinking "mean-spirited & partisan confirmation bias" then you're on the right track.

 

[Soonerman]

Krugman thinks the FBI is a hotbed of alt-right sympathies?  WTH

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/useful-idiots-galore.html?_r=1

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Seeing this thread always makes me wish we still had thread sub-titles. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Krugman thinks the FBI is a hotbed of alt-right sympathies?  WTH

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/useful-idiots-galore.html?_r=1

It really sucks having Donald Trump as president, but watching Krugman completely lose it has almost made it worthwhile.

 

[MaxThreshold]

People still read Krugman?  I mean, read as in seriously and not like a comic book?  Wow.

 

[Peyton Marino]

never a more accurate thread title in this board's history

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This one is awful.

 

[Boston]

How much was this guy picked on as a kid...something says he is laying down on a long leather couch talking about his youth on a regular basis...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

He's still priceless.

Already pining for the spotless, blameless, halcyon days of Obama.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

He's still priceless.

Already pining for the spotless, blameless, halcyon days of Obama.

My favorite part of that column -- and all of Krugman's columns over the past several weeks -- is that he just can't stop himself from blaming it all on the FBI.  Hillary was just standing on the corner, minding her own business, and those jerks at the FBI just decided to go after her for some reason.  

 

[SacramentoBob]

This one is awful.

Thought that article was going to be about Eminem.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

My favorite part of that column -- and all of Krugman's columns over the past several weeks -- is that he just can't stop himself from blaming it all on the FBI.  Hillary was just standing on the corner, minding her own business, and those jerks at the FBI just decided to go after her for some reason.  

What should we expect? It's what they do. Don't accept any responsibility and blame everyone else. It will never change.

 

[The Commish]

He's still priceless.

Already pining for the spotless, blameless, halcyon days of Obama.

My favorite part of that column -- and all of Krugman's columns over the past several weeks -- is that he just can't stop himself from blaming it all on the FBI.  Hillary was just standing on the corner, minding her own business, and those jerks at the FBI just decided to go after her for some reason.  

He's become the literary caricature of the segment of the Democratic party that's responsible for the massive losses they've suffered the last decade.  He needs to stick to economics and stay out of politics.  It's embarrassing.  

 

[Bronco Billy]

It's like you've made up your mind what Krugman has said and written without actually listening or reading any of it.

Hey, wait a minute...

As a public service:

Krugman led the charge against Obama in 2009 and 2010. He banged on him weekly.

Krugman is still right about what happens at zero interest rates -- and the high interest rates/high inflation people are still wrong without addressing or acknowledging that every prediction they made fell flat.

Seriously?  He was banging on Obama because he wanted Obama to ramp up Federal spending a lot more than Obama already had. He wanted a Stimulus on steroids, spending even more money that the government already doesn't have. 

 

[adonis]

I'm usually a fan of Krugman and find him to have good economic insights, and sometimes informative political ones (but less as an expert, and more as a talking head).  

But since the election, I think he's been struggling to find his footing.  He's upset, not really sure what to do about it, and is throwing poo in different directions to see what sticks - and so far nothing really does.  I think that he needs some solid economic policy to get worked up over (which Trump has given very little of so far) or a scandal or some other major policy issues to sink his teeth into.  

But for now, he seems to be spinning his wheels a bit.  I guess that's natural as he's an Op-Ed writer and has to put out two articles every week, regardless of how much substance he has to work with.

 

[rockaction]

Read a profile of him in the New York Times Magazine a few years ago. Said his wife had encouraged him to be more of a political advocate than an economist.  We need another? 

Yawn.

Eta* this was an apolitical statement brought to you by your friendly rockaction.

 

[dickey moe]

As ####ty as a Trump Presidency is likely to be, it's going to be an entertaining 4 (maybe 8) years of Krugman columns, provided that his curly lettuce doesn't spontaneously combust before then.

 

[Statorama]

I don't care about awards, so that means nothing. Obama, for example, won a peace award.

What is important is that he is NOT a really good economist. His job is to pose as a court economist at the New York Times and be a shill for statist policies that destroy wealth and freedom.

I agree.  I find him to be the Jim Cramer of economists.

He's got that same Neil deGrasse Tyson type reputation...people think he's smart because they've heard people say he's smart.  Once you do some research on your own and dig a little, they get exposed as clowns pretty quickly.

 

[Statorama]

his wife had encouraged him to be more of a political advocate than an economist.  

This is where we need that :WhipCrack: emoticon

 

[adonis]

Just putting it in this thread, for posterity. This was from the night of the election, when Dow Futures had crashed 800 points in the surprise after Trump shocked Hillary:

Markets recovered within hours of the open, and set new all-time highs just about every week since. Has gone up from ~18,500-ish to flirting with 20,000 today.

And it was the next day or so that he corrected himself, said he over-reacted, and said there wasn't reason to believe anything bad would happen.  

But yeah, initial over-reaction for sure.  He did own his mistake though, very quickly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

August 2016:

The campaign still has three ugly months to go, but the odds — 83 percent odds, according to the New York Times’s model — are that it will end with the election of a sane, sensible president. So what should she do to boost America’s economy, which is doing better than most of the world but is still falling far short of where it should be?

There are, of course, many ways our economic policy could be improved. But the most important thing we need is sharply increased public investment in everything from energy to transportation to wastewater treatment.

How should we pay for this investment? We shouldn’t — not now, or any time soon. Right now there is an overwhelming case for more government borrowing.

January 2017:

Not long ago prominent Republicans like Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, liked to warn in apocalyptic terms about the dangers of budget deficits, declaring that a Greek-style crisis was just around the corner. But now, suddenly, those very same politicians are perfectly happy with the prospect of deficits swollen by tax cuts; the budget resolution they’re considering would, according to their own estimates, add $9 trillion in debt over the next decade. Hey, no problem.

This sudden turnaround comes as a huge shock to absolutely nobody — at least nobody with any sense. All that posturing about the deficit was obvious flimflam, whose purpose was to hobble a Democratic president, and it was completely predictable that the pretense of being fiscally responsible would be dropped as soon as the G.O.P. regained the White House.

What wasn’t quite so predictable, however, was that Republicans would stop pretending to care about deficits at almost precisely the moment that deficits were starting to matter again.

I actually agree with his current position on deficit spending, but it takes a high level of jackassery to do a 180 from the position you held not even five months ago, when you thought your candidate was going to win.

 

[The Commish]

[Krugman]

Not THAT kind of spending IK....

[/Krugman]

 

[timschochet]

August 2016:

January 2017:

I actually agree with his current position on deficit spending, but it takes a high level of jackassery to do a 180 from the position you held not even five months ago, when you thought your candidate was going to win.

I don't see a contradiction here. He's always been for deficit spending and still is. He's not arguing against it now, just pointing out that the Republicans have reversed their position and suggesting they were dishonest before (I disagree with him on this: they have effectively reversed their position, but they weren't dishonest, just trapped with conflicting goals.)

 

[Slapdash]

August 2016:

January 2017:

I actually agree with his current position on deficit spending, but it takes a high level of jackassery to do a 180 from the position you held not even five months ago, when you thought your candidate was going to win.

This still looks like his point, unless the he in your sentence refers to Paul Ryan:

Those apocalyptic warnings are still foolish: America, which borrows in its own currency and therefore can’t run out of cash, isn’t at all like Greece. But running big deficits is no longer harmless, let alone desirable.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This still looks like his point, unless the he in your sentence refers to Paul Ryan:

This part (that I agree with):

What changes once we’re close to full employment? Basically, government borrowing once again competes with the private sector for a limited amount of money. This means that deficit spending no longer provides much if any economic boost, because it drives up interest rates and “crowds out” private investment.

The reason why this makes him a jackass is that we didn't go from a liquidity trap in August to full employment in January.  He could have written the exact same column then, but didn't.

 

[Slapdash]

This part (that I agree with):

The reason why this makes him a jackass is that we didn't go from a liquidity trap in August to full employment in January.  He could have written the exact same column then, but didn't.

I see your point now.   I do enjoy pointing out Ryan's hypocrisy on this matter but it is more than offset by burning one of my NYT views on Krugman

 

[adonis]

This part (that I agree with):

The reason why this makes him a jackass is that we didn't go from a liquidity trap in August to full employment in January.  He could have written the exact same column then, but didn't.

I see your point now.   I do enjoy pointing out Ryan's hypocrisy on this matter but it is more than offset by burning one of my NYT views on Krugman

Use incognito mode on Chrome browser, or search for a specific article via google news and click-through that way.  Solves most problems, except for Krugman being a jackass...

It certainly does seem that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of spending and deficits though, with respect to our country's financial situation (liquidity trap vs healthier employment numbers)

 

[Slapdash]

It certainly does seem that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of spending and deficits though, with respect to our country's financial situation (liquidity trap vs healthier employment numbers)

Well blowing out the deficit when the economy is relatively healthy and arguing it is an existential crisis when economy is ailing is about the opposite of good sense. 

 

[RCon]

Well blowing out the deficit when the economy is relatively healthy and arguing it is an existential crisis when economy is ailing is about the opposite of good sense. 

Deficits matter when my party is in the minority, but not when my party is in power.  Duh.

 

[mattdaddy]

This part (that I agree with):

The reason why this makes him a jackass is that we didn't go from a liquidity trap in August to full employment in January.  He could have written the exact same column then, but didn't.

Exactly Right. Bob Murphy shows that he flipped his position from as short as eight weeks ago. He also chronicles his position throughout all of 2016 juxtaposed to Krugmans's own statistical basis he is now claiming for why deficits matter now but not eight weeks ago, three months ago, six months ago, etc..

https://lara-murphy.com/krugmans-case-deficits-flip-flopped-eight-weeks/

 

[ren hoek]

Exactly Right. Bob Murphy shows that he flipped his position from as short as eight weeks ago. He also chronicles his position throughout all of 2016 juxtaposed to Krugmans's own statistical basis he is now claiming for why deficits matter now but not eight weeks ago, three months ago, six months ago, etc..

https://lara-murphy.com/krugmans-case-deficits-flip-flopped-eight-weeks/

I am pleased to see Bob Murphy mentioned anywhere on this forum.