The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.12.10 @ 7:10AM

Paul Krugman has reduced economics to a simple formula: Use Republicans/conservatives as straw men, use generalizations to attack the straw men, claim victory with more generalizations, then have negative comments from an educated public about your idiocies deleted by the New York Times support staff.

coal carrier| 8.12.10 @ 8:09AM

The formula you describe is not just used by Krugman. It is the formula used by the entire establishment left.

travelah| 8.12.10 @ 12:59PM

Krugman is a serious bad joke although I have no problem with the 20% Democrat hardcore affiliates continuing to listen to the fool.

RRD| 8.12.10 @ 6:21PM

I see you are having the same experience I am - clean but caustic comments on Krugman just never seem to make to the comments section.

Carl Peter Klapper| 8.12.10 @ 10:01PM

Also, letters to the editor are ignored by that staff. Despite bringing up cogent points not brought up by either the left or the right -- I am a Populist, so I do this often -- I have yet to have my letters printed in the New York Times. I have had better luck with the The Washington Post, so I know it is not the content or quality of my missives that has caused their repeated rejection by the Times staff. Perhaps they ought to label their Opinion page: "Just the letters agreeing with us".

Rick| 8.12.10 @ 10:54PM

The NYT, like many liberal propaganda machines, does not have the guts to print letters from non-believers. Anything to deny that their opposition is many times more numerous than their supporters.

Letscheck| 8.13.10 @ 3:10AM

I have had the same experience. It does not matter how I say it, what I say, whether my spelling is correct, or if I have made a point...the NYT does not allow opinions that differ with Krugman. They may show up right after posting but are gone by the dawns early light.

tpaine| 8.12.10 @ 10:06PM

Hear!! Hear!! Couldn't have said it better myself.

tpaine| 8.12.10 @ 10:20PM

Read "The Timeless Principles of American Prosperity" by Peter Ferrara and you'll understand what makes socialists click . . . trust me, it's not intellect.

Maddox| 8.12.10 @ 7:48AM

Mr. Krugman is a proficient expert in one area, political cheer leading. Perhaps that is what really impressed the Nobel Committee.

domoaringatoo| 8.12.10 @ 11:52AM

"Perhaps"? You have a generous spirit Maddox.

Magic Chef| 8.12.10 @ 7:54AM

Krugman meant Flim Flan the Spanish Custard desert.

Ron Jazz Man| 8.12.10 @ 4:54PM

Krugman stole the line "frim fram sauce" from an old jazz song. He's drunk on the "cool aid".

RalphSchmalph| 8.12.10 @ 8:20PM

Nat King Cole, right?

Victor Erimita| 8.12.10 @ 11:23PM

I don't want French fried potatoes,
Red ripe tomatoes.
I'm never satisfied.
I want the frim fram sauce with aussenfey,
and shafafa on the side.
http://www.sing365.com/music/l.....F1000CB228

carnot| 8.12.10 @ 8:13AM

9.5% and climbing

another name for the list

Chad| 8.12.10 @ 10:40PM

Climbing because businesses fear that the Democrats will lose Congress and/or the Senate, correct?

Don't you hate it when someone throws your own idiotic logic back in your face?

Prospector| 8.13.10 @ 12:36AM

If you were attempting a play at logic, you have failed. If you are assuming to be an idiot, I congratulate you. You perform this most brilliant!

carnot| 8.12.10 @ 8:15AM

if you must consume.....keep purchasing foreign made products.

Harley Woodrow Mantz| 8.12.10 @ 8:23AM

Paul Krugman is an economist like Howard Zinn was a historian.

Bill| 8.12.10 @ 7:22PM

Now, THAT is funny!

FastJohnny| 8.12.10 @ 9:50PM

Harley,

Great comment! Very funny.

Ditchdigger| 8.12.10 @ 7:42PM

C'mon. As was said of Galbraith, Krugman's the greatest economist since Edna St. Vincent Millay

Victor Erimita| 8.12.10 @ 11:26PM

I am so stealing that.

Ralph Novy| 8.13.10 @ 2:51PM

I know you meant this sarcastically, but you've nonetheless uttered something true -- and complimentary.

lol

Joke's on YOU.

ncatty| 8.12.10 @ 9:20AM

I have given up, for now, arguing in favor of tax rate cuts. Spending is the issue and one that resonates with the electorate. And it resonates because it is understandable. If the GOP wants to go on the offensive, and not just hope that the Dems implode, then the Ryan Plan should be adopted as "the" GOP plan.

Ned | 8.12.10 @ 12:10PM

You are right, of course... but isn't it mind boggling that Barry and the Fairyland Gang in the White House think that they can spend their way out of trouble...?

Yo, Barry! What, exactly, did you think the housing bubble collapse was all about, anyway?

Midders| 8.12.10 @ 11:38PM

I can't remember who said it, but it is perfect in my opinion: "The government trying to spend its way out of debt is like a drunk trying to drink him/herself into sobriety."

jack| 8.16.10 @ 7:59PM

What makes you think barry does not understand the results of his actions? More crises equals more government.

JShizzle| 8.12.10 @ 9:38AM

I used to think the Nobel Prize was significant. Now that people like Al Gore, Krugman and Obama are winning, the prize has turned into a joke.

RRD| 8.12.10 @ 6:23PM

I gave up on it when Arafat recieved a peace prize while Ghandi has not.

Jane L Wegener| 8.16.10 @ 7:17AM

Agree 100% the Nobel Prize is an insignificant joke given to the most undeserving people. From my view a person who wins this prize will be looked at as someone of questionable integrity.

Stan Redmond| 8.12.10 @ 9:38AM

Why waste your time even reading Krugman? You know exactly what he will write. And everything he has written has been proven false.

owyheewine| 8.12.10 @ 9:58AM

That also applies to Maureen Dowdy, Frank Richy-Rich, David Babbling-Brooks and the rest of the NYT apparachik corps. When will you people from the eastern axis of evil figure out that there is nothing of intellectual merit it the combined ravings of this bunch?

Nancy Armor| 8.12.10 @ 3:51PM

And when will you stop using childish ( and un-funny) appellations? Think Krugman's attempts at humor are lame? Look in the mirror. You cheapen your commentary with made-up silly names.

XuR| 8.12.10 @ 4:23PM

AAAwww Nancy just LOVES Paul and the lefties... and she just can't stand name calling from people who disagree with such horrible disgusting people who some how can look at themselves in the mirror everyday and sleep. Hey Nancy I wish you luck in life you must be one miserable person when people aren't talking horrible stuff about "righties" and Bush. Try growing up. :)

Victor Erimita| 8.12.10 @ 11:31PM

Thank you, Nancy. And I'm sure you regularly take MoDo to task for calling people Dubya or Rummy, and Frank Rich for calling anyone to the right of Mao a racist, and so on. And Jon Stewart fr his cute smirk every time he mentions Sarah Palin or any other consertative. Or Senator Al Franken rolling his eyes at Mithc McConnell during a Senate hearing Franken was chairing. Because, as we know, dignity and respect are the watchwords of today's Left.

Cranios| 8.12.10 @ 4:33PM

When the NYT goes out of business. Not until then.

Jeff Younger| 8.12.10 @ 8:57PM

I can't wait. I'm throwing a party. Of course the lame duck Congress will probably provide a taxpayer bailout to sustain Pravda, err, the NYT for another decade.

Ron The Jazz Man| 8.12.10 @ 5:01PM

They don't have to think anymore. Comes the "Revolution" they will be working for People Magazine!!

Stan Redmond| 8.14.10 @ 10:39AM

The difference between the others and Krugman is Democrats actually use Krugman to write economic policy. Dowd, Rich, and Brooks offer opinion pieces that really don't effect my life all that much. Tax increases and Keynesian policies kill my business plans.

SoSueMe001| 8.12.10 @ 4:13PM

I don't know about Krugman, as I rarely visit the New York Times (America's paper of wreckord) site, due to the lack of comments for most articles. But I know, given just the headline, I could write the Washington Post columns for E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson. Hey, I'd even apply burnt cork black-face for Robinson's. Two for one...can't beat it with a stick. I've made this offer online to the Post editors and am awaiting a reply ;-)

Ralph Novy| 8.13.10 @ 2:54PM

"...everything he has written has been proven false. "

Oh? Name ONE thing.

Clinton nee Publius| 8.12.10 @ 10:03AM

I understand the man's rage. Mr. Krugman has been found to be woefully ignorant of the ability to assemble a workable mosaic of economic policies and his prescriptions for ending the Great Recession has in fact only made it worse.

Once again we are forced to bear witness to the corruption that defines the socialist approach and the core of the liberal-progressive movement. We would do well to remember:

(1) Government spending mostly favors the ruling class and this is why they support it - not because of any other supposed good it would do.

(2) Deficit spending only increases our pain further - enriching the ruling class at an even greater rate at our exclusive risk and cost.

(3) The only cure for our penchant for unlimited fiscal spending is to change the system so the outcomes are completely different.

Today, every spending bill creates more "economic victims" the government must rescue in the future. What we want is a system where every spending bill is actually a direct stimulus to the demand schedule for capital investment and the demand schedule for employment. Keynesian economics cannot deliver this and neither can supply-side economics. This is a fundamental change that can only come by adopting the investment-income model of government financing (Lovellian economics) and use equity-expansion instead of liability-expansion as the means for currency inflation.

We also know that the media and the NYT are perhaps the worst possible sources for factual economic information and we should bear that in mind at all times.

CodeWarrior| 8.12.10 @ 4:54PM

I think people from my neck of the woods would call it the 3D model: every liberal-progresive spending program is specifically designed to keep its recipients dumb, dependent and Democrat.

Kishego| 8.13.10 @ 4:21PM

Otherwise known as the "Gold Standard"

Bruce| 8.12.10 @ 10:08AM

The only way that Krugman will ever have any credibility would be for him to explain how present and future mandates in Social Security, Medicare, and Health Care can be paid for given historical evidence of the government's tax income as a percent of GDP. It can't be done!
I can only imagine that his logic would be something akin to:
(courtesy of Stephen Hawking) ... A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Supreme Galooti| 8.12.10 @ 10:25AM

I have met many a prideful soul from Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale and Harvard, and though they were nice enough folk to chat with when it comes to intellectual honesty there is not a one of them that I would trust alone in a room with a red-hot stove unless the stove were comparatively valueless.

Petronius| 8.12.10 @ 10:30AM

That old lady holds a Chair in physics at the Unseen University. I'd sooner have Terry Pratchett running this economy than Krugman any day.
Call me when the market closes in Ankhmorpork.

howard lohmuller| 8.12.10 @ 10:48AM

A few years ago I used to peruse Krugman's columns. There was a pattern to them. One was a re occurring scare theme such as our status as reserve currency being threatened, and which would be repeated by his NYT sidekick, Tom Friedman. Another readily noticeable theme was that Krugman was always wrong. That made me wonder how he got his Nobel until I saw how Al Gore got his.

But hey, he bought a big house with his million dollar prize and lives well with a NYT salary. I suspect he would do well even writing for Larry Flynt.

Nid| 8.12.10 @ 3:43PM

Don't forget James Earl Carter...he's got one too. But then, he also had a Prime Time Sit-com named in his honor...

Vocab police| 8.12.10 @ 8:53PM

If you must use peruse..use it correctly. It means to read and examine with great care. You use it to imply you simply glanced at the articles. Otherwise, good comments.

Duncan| 8.13.10 @ 2:37AM

You can't really say how he used it. You infer that he meant "glanced at". But he did see patterns and themes which are the hallmarks of close reading.

Furthermore, since the connotative and denotative meanings of the word "peruse" are in opposition I suggest we just let it go...it had a good run.

Duncan| 8.13.10 @ 2:31AM

His Nobel was for "new trade theory" work in the late 70s. He integrates economies of scale into trade models alongside network effects. It is a much better model for trade between countries of the same specialized goods than the comparative advantage models that existed before.

He deserves the Nobel. When he got it was suspect... I just wish he'd stick to economics, but he finds the time to write too.

Houston Rao| 8.12.10 @ 11:27AM

Paul Ryan may not be an economist. But what sauce does Krugman think the IMF has drenched their July report on the US that categorically states “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”?

Note the word 'permanent'. What the IMF is pointing out is that an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy is required from right now until perpetuity if the US is to be able to fund its liabilities and entitlements?

The only way to avoid this is by growing the economy by more than 14% each year to perpetuity. It means running a surplus of 5% forever.

How realistic does Krugman think this is?

Krugman deserves another Nobel prize for fiction.

rpu28| 8.12.10 @ 4:52PM

It doesn't take an economist to figure out which way the country should go. Graph all countries' government spending (as a fraction of GDP) and GDP growth for the past century. You'll find low government spending correlated with high GDP growth, and vice versa. You'll also find countries like Cuba, the old USSR, and the African kleptocracies grouped in one corner, and the top economies grouped in the opposite corner. If you don't like this outcome, choose your own indicator - employment, inflation, interest rates, etc. - to compare to government spending as a fraction of GDP. The current administration wants to give socialistic spending one more try, against all the empirical data.

Marion| 8.12.10 @ 7:42PM

actually, Paul Ryan does have a degree in economics.
It is almost certainly Keynesian though, since that is all that is taught now.

But maybe his association with Jack Kemp counteracted those bad ideas.

Pat| 8.12.10 @ 11:45AM

Krugman is a genius but he’s not a comic, he’s an impersonator. No, not that kind of impersonator, although not much is really known about his private life, rather he’s an entertainer who impersonates an economist so New York Times readers will hear the Democratic Party’s message from a Nobel Laureate. None of his economic predictions ever come true – although no one seems to notice that – and Krugman always insists on the same solution to economic problems – he wants to take your money and give it someone else – and, yes, without your permission - although Krugman and his associates on the Democratic Party National Committee would prefer you feel good about the Democrats taking your money. Hint: Those “someone else’s” who receive your money coincidentally vote Democrat.

Now some economists who aren’t impersonating other economists have dubbed Krugman’s Vegas act and solution to economic problems the “Krugman Cycle” – basically, a massive bailout, followed by no change in the unemployment rate, followed by another massive bailout, followed by no change in the unemployment rate, followed by a major tax hike. So, when do we get to “followed by a large decrease in the unemployment rate”? We don’t. The Krugman Cycle doesn’t solve economic problems, it solves Democratic Party problems, it takes your money and gives it to others as an inducement for those others to vote Democrat – didn’t we already cover this point?

And some Conservatives need to understand what’s behind the Krugman Cycle, they need to have that long delayed father and son talk – no, not about that subject – about how the real world works. When you visit the New York Times to read Krugman’s latest nonsense, the Gray Lady can truthfully tell advertisers you’re a customer and saw their advertisement. The Advertisers are thrilled you are hearing their message and give the New York Times money, some of that money goes to Krugman – it’s called micro-economics, something Krugman has never quite grasped. See, reading Krugman’s stuff helps others take your money – do you understand that, Son? And, no, you are not performing a service to other Conservatives by reading and then debunking Krugman’s nonsense, the New York Times still collects from the advertisers, Paul still gets paid. Want to solve the unemployment problem? Start by consistently avoiding Krugman and the New York Times.

StillLearning| 8.13.10 @ 9:12AM

Dropped the NYT in all forms a bit over a year ago, and unbelievably, my world has not stopped. Spend your money elsewhere. It's the only language the publishers understand.

Angel Artiste| 8.12.10 @ 11:53AM

Krugmanomics:
1. Confiscate America's wealth.
2. Dump it down a rathole.
3. Wait for the economy to improve.

NOvember| 8.12.10 @ 3:58PM

Sums it up admirably. Krugman is a man out of time - his true calling is augury.

Pittsburgh Pete| 8.12.10 @ 1:12PM

Mr. Krugman epitomizes the immodesty of liberals, seeking to intimidate and humiliate into compliance rather than inviting with reason and fact.
He is a clear example of what a waste an intellect is that doesn't have a soul.

Ghan| 8.12.10 @ 4:06PM

Pithy and apt.

Mojo Risin| 8.12.10 @ 1:15PM

How do we know Paul Krugman doesn't go home after a hard day at work and proceed to get roll-around-in-his-own-vomit drunk, on a daily basis? It may explain his Bizzaro-World interpretation of the days events and with that being said, who can fathom why he keeps getting paid for being so consistently wrong?

Radioman777| 8.12.10 @ 1:32PM

Krugman makes idiots look smart.

Kiltmaker| 8.12.10 @ 1:39PM

Genius is as genius does. Or is that stupid is as stupid does. Sorry, I'm just an ordinary, dumb, slub.
My grandparents understood economics better than Krugman. If you don't have the money, don't spend it. Or if you need more money to pay for the essentials, another job never hurt anyone.
Dave Ramsey for Sec of Treasury

Margie| 8.12.10 @ 5:18PM

Hear Hear! Dave Ramsey indeed. "Where cash is king.."

Just imagine if the Feds used the debt snowball method and quit the spending of money they don't really have. We'd be free of debt and able to grow again and succeed and prosper greatly. Oh, that's right. Theirs is a purposeful plan of failure and they have absolutely no intention of a prosperous and free and successful country. Socialism sucks the lifeblood out of a free country.

Sad. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

Walter| 8.12.10 @ 2:34PM

Teh Republican tax plan and Ryan's own plan cuts upper-income tax brackets by 10 percent, so that households with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average annual tax cut of $502,000, and the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans would receive an average tax cut of $1.7 million a year. Meanwhile, everyone making under $100,000 will see their taxes increased, on average by $2,000.

This is modern Republican politics on display. Raise taxes for the middle class and massively cut taxes for the rich.

Tom_Beebe| 8.12.10 @ 5:03PM

This Libertarian would-be (me, not Walter, of course) feels the GOP tax cuts are slightly off-the-mark. Rather than cut taxes on the rich because that would stimulate consumption the most, I would cut (or eliminate) taxes on savings to stimulate domestic investment. Indeed this might create a whole class of Buffets, but so what? His money becomes working capital (in the broad sense; capital put to work). In fact, lets have a high flat tax (35-40% with just four deductions: a high personal exemption to protect those unable to bear that rate, health care, including insurance, education and savings. Let the personal exemption and flat rate be set each year as part of the budget process, and set that budget cap to be what those two figures would generate if applied to the previous year's reported incomes.

Jeremiah| 8.12.10 @ 5:04PM

You are assuming that the tax system is currently fair. If that's the case, did you know that the top 1% pays over 40% of the taxes the Fed collects? That would be fair if infact they earned 40% of the income. But they don't. They earn ~25% of the income. Therefore, they are paying taxes at nearly 2 to 1 the rate that the "non-rich" are paying. Furthermore, did you know that the top 10% pay over 70% of the taxes? The bottom 50% don't pay any taxes. Most of them receive benefits paid by those "rich".

Class warfare is classless. It is also clueless about how the world actually works. Those rich that you loathe are the ones who create and support the jobs we all believe that we have a "right" to. Dems are so eager to dole out new "rights" that you'd think that they'd at least pretent to protect those that are to source of the new "rights" granted (i.e. business owners in the case of employment).

Carl Peter Klapper| 8.12.10 @ 10:22PM

Fairness has nothing to do with it. Taxing INCOME saps the ability of the poor and worse to climb out of zero or negative net worth. Instead of starting new businesses, they then remain in dead-end jobs which the other poor and worse need to just stay afloat.

The Populist approach is to tax WEALTH instead. The elegant solution to doing this involves something which Jimmy Carter hated and something else that Ron Paul would love.

rpu28| 8.12.10 @ 6:09PM

Walter, your argument has no weight unless you tell us the effective tax rates for the rich and middle class before "Teh Republican tax plan" produces the results you quote. If the difference in fractional tax burden between the rich and middle class is large, then your argument is specious. If the difference is small, then you have a point. Judging from the prevailing wisdom that something like the top 10% of taxpayers pays over half the income tax, you may have difficulty in demonstrating that your sentiment is just more populist flim-flam.

davelnaf| 8.12.10 @ 2:41PM

So few people read the New York Times anymore Krugman has to find a way to drum up business for the hapless rag. However, attacking conservatives, like Ryan, for daring to suggest that Washington spending is out of control and offering a way out of it disqualifies him personally to be considered seriously.

Nathaniel T.| 8.12.10 @ 3:36PM

I hardly think Paul Krugman is on the wrong track with his criticisms of Congressman Ryan. Where I get annoyed is reading some of the really nasty or childish dismissals of Krugman. Of course he has made himself a more political figure in the last decade, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a great economist and one of those rare economics academics who can turn the subject into highly readable text.

Nid| 8.12.10 @ 3:54PM

"Readable" perhaps....and certainly entertaining at times(as pointed out by so many, including the author of the piece). Unfortunately not "believable", "credible" nor "accurate-able".

jeffll| 8.12.10 @ 4:12PM

Nathaniel, you asspire to be another Paul Krugman with your own comic wit. If you actually believe the drivel he is trying to sell you, then I have some beach front property in AZ (next to a really big fence) to sell you. Have a good day!

JDComments| 8.12.10 @ 4:44PM

Krugman is a true intellectual as defined by Thomas Sowell in "Intellectuals and Society" which means , for those who have not read it, that he is essentially worse than useless, he is destructive.

peter johnson cox| 8.13.10 @ 3:06PM

Thomas Sowell is a true intellectual, as defined by Sowell himself in "Intellectuals and Society" which means , for those who have not read it, that he is essentially worse than useless, he is destructive.

Jeremiah| 8.12.10 @ 5:13PM

Wow. What exactly constitutes a "great economist"? Would that have something to do with actually making accurate predictions? When did Krugman do that?

Also, what about Krugman's nasty and childish dismissals of Congressman Ryan's "Roadmap"? Instead of trying to refute claims and arguments with facts and opinions supported by evidence, Krugman uses words like "flim flam" to refute the "Roadmap". Did you even read this column?

Leon E| 8.12.10 @ 3:43PM

You people are amazing. You give no evidence of ever having read either Ryan or Krugman. Unlike almost any other blogger or columnist, Krugman's work is always fact-filled and the sources, which are typically solid ones like the CBO or the Fed, always linked or cited. He uses clear models and examples, his arguments are solid (I am a logician by training and profession, so I am pretty sure I can tell a valid argument from fallacies better than most). Read him and learn.

Nid| 8.12.10 @ 3:59PM

Just to review; as a "blogger (and) columnist" Krugman makes arguments using clear models and examples? That's great.

But doesn't he hold himself out as an "Economist" first and foremost? In that capacity, his track record is also "clear"....he's typically dead-wrong.

banderlogtorpedo| 8.12.10 @ 4:18PM

Leone, I thought the blade runner whacked you.

BA Cyclone| 8.12.10 @ 4:25PM

"You give no evidence of ever having read either Ryan or Krugman."

Your criticism alone implies you've not read Paul Ryan's roadmap nor any of his biting responses to Krugman's satirical prose re: Ryan. One of them is linked right in this article, and you should be able to do an internet search on your own to read the Roadmap. Try it yourself, YOU might learn something.

"Read him and learn."
Learn? Learn what? Krugment tries to make scientific-sounding arguments with suppositions of blind faith, innuendo, and debunked data. If I want to read fiction, I can find far more entertaining authors AND topics.

"I am a logician by training and profession"

I hope they gave you a receipt.

Cranios| 8.12.10 @ 4:38PM

Leon, you mis-typed. You are a magician by training and profession, not a logician. You couldn't possibly be a logician unless you simply can't tell the assumed facts from fiction.

JDComments| 8.12.10 @ 4:59PM

A logician, someone who plays in their mind essentially to arrive at conclusions which may or may not have any practical value, would be impressed by the mental gymnastics of a Progressive Liberal.
Those who live in the real world, however, expect much more than the modern equivalent of calculating the number of angels who can fit on a pin. You see, your pride in your logical qualifications are exactly what disqualify you from understanding what everyone here knows- Krugman is useless as an empirical economist.

Animator Girl| 8.12.10 @ 5:20PM

Aw, cute. Hear that, folks? He's a logician, a PROFESSIONAL logician, and therefore smarter than you. So those of you out there who own a business and employ people (for now, until the government makes it impossible) are just worthless, dumb rubes who know nothing of economics or logic. Krugman and Leon E = genius, and those of you who work for a living = idiots. Glad we got that cleared up.

NOvember| 8.12.10 @ 3:55PM

Krugman calling someone else a charlatan - that's rich!

Thomas Paine| 8.12.10 @ 4:12PM

I read many of Krugman's academic papers in grad school (PhD Econ, UCLA) and, for all the skeptics out there, the guy was a certifiable genius in economics. (Hold the boos and hisses, pls)

The problems with Krugman's philosophy were, however, observable from the start:

One paper demonstrated, mathematically and correctly, how protecting an industry against imports can be beneficial. For example:

- Korea wants an auto industry
- Auto production has major economies-of-scale (the more you make, the cheaper they get)
- By banning imports, Korea's auto industry gets the entire 40 million population captive, and can reach efficient scale relative to world producers
- To be fair, Krugman did countenance dropping the import barriers in return for access to other countries' markets.

OK, the math was clean and precise. HOWEVER, what was telling was the focus of the paper itself -- laying a theoretical justification for GOVERNMENT ACTION -- in this case, protectionism.

And THAT is problem #1 with Krugman -- like many economics professors (and grad students), there is a subconscious desire to effect policy, to argue for action, outcomes. Perhaps it gets lonely having a limited but secure salary and a tenured position, and the desire to reach out into public policy and "pull the levers" can be overwhelming, I guess.

(I chose to go straight into the private sector)

Problem #2 for Krugman is his conspicuous ignorance of something economists call the First Welfare Theorem, which basically says optimality is achieved with FREE exchange of goods.

There are few things less free exchange than individuals' tax money being spent FOR THEM by the government. Krugman forgets this, or glosses it over.

In the national income equation Y = C + I + G + X, Krugman equates increases in G with increases in C -- "we need more stimulus spending!!!" is his mantra. Has he forgotten that an equal dollar amount going to G versus C has LESS benefit to the citizens? Sure it adds up the same, but the STUFF chosen by G can never confer as much benefit as the STUFF chosen by C (see First Welfare Theorem).

Put another way, consumer spending would never result in a turtle crossing, or those stimulus road signs touting stimulus. The money might as well be dumped in the ocean.

This should be the economic underpinning of TAX CUTS (or even direct payments to citizens) versus GOVERNMENT SPENDING. The former is spent "wisely" while the latter is not.

Put one last way, I'd be happy to take Krugman a little more seriously ... when he hands over his entire salary to ME every month TO SPEND ON HIS BEHALF.

Jeremiah| 8.12.10 @ 5:29PM

You might well be a PhD in Economics, but you fail to even discuss the role of incentives, however. Krugman never wants to discuss this as well. Economics is more a social science than a hard science. Incentives matter!

This is why Keynesian economics has failed so miserably time and time again. It approaches the world as if it were a static boardgame. The world is dynamic. Incentives change. Behavior thus changes. Behavior changes create unintended consequences that were never contemplated in the original analysis. The best economists (see Friedman) observe ecomomic analysis from the perspective of incentives.

sub| 8.12.10 @ 4:15PM

krugman is a smarmy, entitled, born with a silver spoon liberal a-hole. i really don't care how much math he knows, fundamentally, as a human being and an intellectual entity, he is a sham. he is one the few "columnists" out there for whom I'd gladly spend the night in prison, on the opportunity to nail him with a right cross.....

Joe| 8.12.10 @ 4:17PM

"Americans are willing to take cuts in their entitlements for the good of the economy and the wellbeing of future generations."

What planet do you live on? Give Americans something free and they will NEVER give it up without a fight. I thought your article was interesting up until I read this incredibly ignorant statement. No wonder why your rag has become such a joke.

Deborah D| 8.13.10 @ 12:01AM

Perhaps Mr. Tyrrell should have specified -- "Americans who love their children are willing to take cuts in their entitlements...."

What do you think the Tea Party is all about? It's about our children's future. You're the Joke, Joe.

Peter | 8.12.10 @ 4:27PM

Krugman is brilliant and his Nobel was related to his excellent work on trade. Because he is so smart he knows what he's doing and it is exactly as some have indicated here--to act as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party and lend credence to their ideas based on his credentials.

Some may have a hard time understanding how such an intellectually bright man could sign on for such work, but if you're like me and live in NYC among the liberal elite it fits perfectly with their mindset. It comes from an absolute belief in the righteousness of the cause and a sincere viewpoint that conservatives have no real empathy or sympathy for others who are less well off, suffer from emotional or physical problems or who otherwise need help. In other words, they see liberalism, as now defined, as a substitute for Judeo-Christian beliefs related to charity, equality, kindness, etc. Their church is the government and they expect it to act similarly, providing relief and sustenance to the masses.

I have discussed every political issue under the sun with some of smartest, most successful liberals imagineable. No amount of examples from the real world can dissuade them of their views. They are boldly convinced that they are right no matter what evidence is put before them. It is blind faith and nothing more, something that can't be countered.

cautiousOne| 8.12.10 @ 11:41PM

so he sold his soul........at that point his intellect no long mattered.
It is blind faith and nothing more? Yes, but in whom or what ?

Mike Gabel| 8.12.10 @ 4:28PM

If you want to witness poise and class, take a look at Paul Ryan's response to Krugman's column. This young man stuck to the facts and kicked Krugman's butt, just like he kicked President Kick Ass's butt during the phony health care summit.
Mr. Ryan is a serious candidate to lead our country.

Petronius| 8.12.10 @ 4:28PM

Real Americans like me want entitlements abolished.
And unless infirmities preclude ones participation in the market economy of this country all others are hereby put on notice. It is incumbent upon each person to establish and maintain him/her-self in society. That is all.

D. Vandenberg| 8.12.10 @ 4:33PM

Do people actually still read The Times? 2009 official daily distribution was 1.1 million for the paper of record...giving Krugman, Friedman and Dowd free press where it otherwise wouldn't sell gives them weight they dont deserve

peter johnson cox| 8.13.10 @ 11:28AM

they sure do, they just read it on line...the monthly "unique visitors" to nytines.com is over 18 million, 80% higher than the newpaper website in 2nd place, usatoday.com, and higher than the 3rd and 4th places websites combined....by comparison the washingtontimes.com barely makes the top 40...just sayin'

common man| 8.12.10 @ 4:36PM

Krugman is an idiot, pure and simple

yamama| 8.12.10 @ 4:44PM

Krugman is a silly pretencious jackass.

James Longdrycreek Ranch| 8.12.10 @ 4:48PM

Aging liberals whose worldview is not validated by events unfolding according to plan become bitter. Krugman often appears to be disappointed because his economic genius is not universally appreciated or his advice sought.
The thing to do for them is steer clear. Give them enough rope and . . .

davidkward| 8.12.10 @ 4:49PM

Krugman and DC for that matter have fallen into a real version of "blue collar defined insanity" hell. Look, if the first stimulus didnt do its job, JUST RINSE AND REPEAT WITH MORE MONEY!. The reason there will never be another stimulus by this administration is that no one in the nation thinks that they will do a better job with the second one. For once, the American populace has actually figured it out before the curve that the intellectual dullards in Democratic Controlled DC only know how to throw money around. They really do not know a thing about business or job creation. The second part of this is that the Demo-DC Crowd cannot bare to actually look at the mess they are creating. Instead they blame the public's inability to comprehend how "wise and intellectuual they are" when in fact the populace has determined exactly the opposite is true.

Michael Pratt| 8.12.10 @ 4:57PM

It is no longer about future generations. It is about OUR future, as in 5 - 10 years from now, (if we are lucky).

People desperately need to stop thinking about our debt as a problem for future generations. It will be but don't deceive yourself into believing that you won't feel the pain of it long before they take over.

TheSnipe| 8.12.10 @ 5:16PM

Gosh, who do I listen to here? A Princeton professor with a Nobel Prize, or some blog-hack whose career jumped the shark fifteen years ago? Hmmmm....

Neal| 8.12.10 @ 5:28PM

KRUGMAN IS SO INSANE THAT HE EVEN MAKES ALGORE SEEM SANE BY COMPARISON!

TheSnipe| 8.12.10 @ 6:05PM

Wow, good one. Really nice of you to let your kid write your comments.

davidkward| 8.12.10 @ 5:29PM

As a trained economist soon to be working on his PhD, i can assure you that almost all economists in today's world view Krugman's career as jumping the shark at this very moment...

mark l.| 8.12.10 @ 5:37PM

[cognitive dissonnance alert]

obama:
the gop isn't offerring any plans.

krugman:
yea, and the one they've been offerring sucks.

davidkward| 8.12.10 @ 11:26PM

touche' Sir, touche'

The real problem is that so many pseudo-intellectuals dont/cant see that exact same thing. They are so focused on staying on the talking points of the latest email that reality never darkens the doorposts of their minds...lol

lee braxston| 8.12.10 @ 5:52PM

Paul " Otto von Bismarck" Krugman. is the "Upper Class Twit of the Year."

Chuck| 8.12.10 @ 5:52PM

Krugman is a Keynesian cult member. As mentioned by others here, he only likes to preach to the faithful. A pundit masquerading as an Economist.(probably the reason he likes the Jon Stewart show so much)

Donot Wantyoutoknow| 8.12.10 @ 6:24PM

I am getting my PhD in economics. Dr. Krugman is an embarrassment to our profession. I simply refuse to believe they awarded the man a Nobel on merit. Krugman, like Obama, won as a result of their progressive ideology.

Very good article, thanks for the read.

davidkward| 8.12.10 @ 11:28PM

you are not alone in that endeavor nor in your conclusions.

Marc Jeric| 8.12.10 @ 6:34PM

I am also a PhD, just as Krugman, although in a much stricter scientific field (engineering vs. economics). Bot the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Economics have been hugely degraded by Abu Hussein al-Mombassa and by that other marxist Krugman.

Henry| 8.12.10 @ 6:49PM

Marxism takes on many forms.

Brendan| 8.12.10 @ 7:18PM

Mr. Krugman's economic beliefs are rooted in the same perfect world economics that every first year economics professor warns their students about. It doesn't matter if you are referring to his Nobel winning work or his political -voodoo economics pieces. And that's what got him the Nobel, the same fraudulent economic theories that quotes Adam Smith out of context to justify the same managed economics policies that have only appear to succeed when sucking the life out of a decade or two of prosperity, and then point finger at the capitalism that allowed them the illusion of success in the first place as the cause. Marx fails because it does not take into account human ambition/motivated self-interest/greed. Mr. Krugman's theories simply adds an addict's addiction to the same, tired, old theories on the proven basis that once you hook someone on freebies, they'll sacrifice almost anything to keep getting "Their Fair Share". And that is why he won the Nobel prize; because the committee believes the same opium pipe dream.

Jake| 8.12.10 @ 7:24PM

If Rep. Ryan did nothing but go around repeating the phrase: "The purpose of the Roadmap is to get spending in line with revenue -- not the other way around."; he would be sitting pretty with a majority of the country listening to him.

harkin| 8.12.10 @ 7:26PM

When Krugman won his Nobel, economists the world over snickered at the prize which was awarded for basically espousing that the United States follow the Euro's lead in becoming more statist, a philosophy btw which most Euro's are beginning to see as the disaster it is. Even the NYT's own ombudsman said that Krugman is more interested in vitriol and attack than defending his ideas with proof.

The Times is on its last legs and PK is one of the reasons, less and less believe his ideologically-based lies.

george chapogas| 8.12.10 @ 7:42PM

simply remember paul krugman is the punchline to every joke in existence. when someone tells a joke as they approach the punchline simply say paul krugman, and everyone will laugh. read, see how it works. hey who did stephenopolousbama interiview on the economy??? paul krugman. hahahahahahaha see, it works every time. how many economists does it take to cause a depression?? paul krugman ..... ooops no more laughing.

scott| 8.12.10 @ 7:48PM

the old gray mare she ain't what she used to be...

WayneH| 8.12.10 @ 9:22PM

Krugman continues to recycle the tired old disproven Keynesian theories that the universities pushed on unsuspecting young students when I studied economics back in the late 70's and early 80's. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary this dogmatic fool continues to blather on, and on and on. I guess maybe he's hoping the New York Times is next in line for some stimulus money he can keep his job - at the expense of someone else's. Though I rarely waste my time reading any of his nonsense, I did read something a few weeks back about him criticizing and calling John McCain a coward for having changed his position on "global warming". Perhaps he should consider that it is wise men who change their minds in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and fools that continue to espouse the failed theories of the past. One thing is for sure though, if I were to ever want an "elitist" government ruler to set the rules, I would much prefer the more pragmatic McCain to the hopelessly partisan and baffoonish policies espoused by Krugman.

alfred| 8.12.10 @ 9:31PM

Three or four years ago I was informed that Mr. Krugman was regarded as a hack in economics circles. Then, during the summer of 2007 he began warning of the impending disaster with subprime mortgages--more than a year before Lehman Brothers and AIG imploded. Then, in February of 2009 he began explaining why President Obama's stimulus package was inadequate. This week the Federal Reserve and the markets seem to have confirmed Mr. Krugman's reasoning.

So... Laugh at him all you want, but ignore him at your peril. He keeps getting the big things right.

chester arthur| 8.12.10 @ 11:02PM

The big things being his salary negotiations,and the right amount of kissing up to the nobel committee.Of course he predicted the meltdown,about a year after several conservative economists predicted it.Since he was part of the problem,advising 'progressive/regressive' political hacks for years on economic policy,he had to know what would happen.Like Will Rogers once said,'an economist can be right once in awhile,his guess is probably as good as anyone else's.'Whenever he appears on some hack public affairs show,Krugman always seems afraid,like he's about to be found out.Ignore him at your peril?How about ignoring his idiotic advice to avoid peril?

Nid| 8.12.10 @ 11:03PM

Uhhhhhh...what? In the Summer of 2007 eh? Shiller was screaming about the housing bubble in 2005; Roubini was saying it in 2006; also in '06 Goldman and Morgan both got bearish.( Oh, and by the way, Bear Stearns began imploding in......wait for it.....Summer 2007; perhaps that was just the subtle hint Krugman needed.)Ex-Fed Official Edward M. Gramlich was warning of the Sub-Prime sitch back in 2004....which coincidently was about the same time Kruuuuugman was pounding the table for even lower rates to spur home ownership for low earners.

don| 8.16.10 @ 3:06PM

Thank you.

davidkward| 8.12.10 @ 11:35PM

Sir, even Bush43 was predicting the mortgage meltdown as far back as 2005. if anything PK was a johnny come lately to the reckoning.

as for the "more stimulus" the $862BN is a record for a stimulus and has to be considered with TARP. The stimulus wasnt too small, it was just horribly misspent by people that have no-clue what they are doing.

cautiousOne| 8.12.10 @ 11:47PM

they are stealing us blind...........................

DeeBee9| 8.12.10 @ 9:37PM

I wonder if when Krugman read the title of this piece he thought it said "Paul Krugman, Cosmic Genius?"

TruBlutopaz| 8.12.10 @ 9:47PM

I have heard that flimflam sauce is delicious on crow.

Nid| 8.12.10 @ 11:06PM

Bwaaaaaaahhoooooo...............

(lol)

Harley2002| 8.12.10 @ 9:49PM

Obama received a Nobel. So it is supposed to mean something ?

SmallThoughts| 8.12.10 @ 9:54PM

Most people are not Harvard trained economists, yet they realize instinctively that the government can not tax and borrow its way to prosperity.

http://smallthoughtsfromasmallmind.wordpress.com/

doggone| 8.12.10 @ 10:42PM

Heard all this bull in the comment section before. The repubs made the same arguements in 1929-1930. If they had their way bank deposits would still be uninsured, thank god dems like Krugman understand the old lies.
Thanks Paul

chester arthur| 8.12.10 @ 11:05PM

Heard all this bull before?Was Krugman a guest commentator?Krugman understands the old lies because he's the one telling them.If you don't understand the dynamic nature of real world economics,you might be a democrat.

TOMACKIO| 8.12.10 @ 10:58PM

Paul Krugman: Mouthpiece for the Elite! Shamus for our Criminal Overlords. I hope the invitations to all the best dinner parties are worth his pathetic soul!

Leonides 67| 8.12.10 @ 11:17PM

You killed it better than Kevin Spacey in "American Beauty"! kudos my brother....peace

Leonides 67| 8.12.10 @ 11:17PM

You killed it better than Kevin Spacey in "American Beauty"! kudos my brother....peace

Leonides 67| 8.12.10 @ 11:17PM

You killed it better than Kevin Spacey in "American Beauty"! kudos my brother....peace

peter johnson cox| 8.13.10 @ 11:23AM

watching tyrrell try to argue against krugman is like watching george will challenge mark mcguire to a few innings of home run derby...

W. L. Barton| 8.18.10 @ 1:01PM

Krugman forgot more about reality and economics, than the kept boy Tyrell, who in my opinion, has a sugardadddy named Richard Mellon Scaife.

DLS| 8.19.10 @ 3:52PM

Arafat/Gore/Carter/Obama/Krugman/Annan et al - Francis Crick continues to spin in his grave.