Economics

Is Paul Krugman, the Doctor, America's Most Politicized Economist?

|

Drink yourself sober!

Usually when they call macroeconomics the dismal science, they're paying the field the compliment of pretending it's a science. But what if leading economists are as susceptible as politicians or journalists to basing their pronouncements not on research but on party affiliation?

In Econ Journal Watch, George Mason University economics student Brett Barkley tries to quantify how likely economists are to change their tune based on whether the Silly Party or the Sensible Party is in power. He focuses on what may be the central fiscal question of the age: Does an economist change his or her view of deficit spending when political power shifts?

Large budget deficits represent a burden on the future, and debt accumulation eventually poses great problems. Economists writing for the public can either highlight such truths, neglect the issue, or try to allay worries or excuse or justify large budget deficits (as anti-recession policy, for example). Economists affiliated or aligned with one of the parties may be suspected of changing their positions on budgets deficits to serve their favored party or win favor with its constituency.

Barkley's finding is that of 17 prominent economists surveyed, six showed evidence of shifting their views on deficits when power shifted, and the most significant changes came in the prognostical pontifications of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman—the Nobel Laureate, 2002 E&P columnist of the year, and three-time winner of the CableACE award:

Barkley opposes Krugman's deficit hawkishness during the two Bush administrations with his calls for more deficit spending during the Clinton and Obama administrations (and also after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006). In some cases, his willingness to keep going deeper into debt has put him at odds even with the politicians he supports, as it did during the debt-reduction period late in Bill Clinton's presidency, and in some strident columns urging Barack Obama not to go wobbly on deficit concerns:

While the administration was beginning to question the efficacy of fiscal stimulus in light of increasing deficits, Krugman argued that with such high unemployment and impending elections no viable option was left but to increase deficit spending. Krugman's main concern seemed to be winning elections and he feared that Obama's "centrist" tendencies would impede such an agenda by giving in to deficit reduction…

Whole study [pdf].

In general I don't pay much attention to Krugman's phantasmagorical philosophizing, but I'm not sure Barkley's methodology makes that strong an indictment. He tabulates comments made at by his subjects at various points, and not surprisingly, Krugman's comments are more voluminous than anybody else's. In fact, if you count up the references, there seems to be a very strong correlation between the number of citations he has for a given economist and the economist's tune-changing, with Krugman and Alan Blinder having both the highest degree of changeability and the highest number of references used.

Nor is there definitely a contradiction between changing your tune by party politics and being a true believer of the drink-yourself-sober school of fiscal management Krugman advocates. It's in the nature of Keynesianism to believe not just that the economy needs to be managed, but that it needs to be managed by the right sort of fellows. Krugman himself addresses this notion in a ramble about the difference between good deficits and bad deficits:

Broadly speaking, there are two ways you can get into severe deficits: fundamental irresponsibility, or temporary emergencies. There's a world of difference between the two. Consider first the classic temporary emergency β€” a big war. It's normal and natural to respond to such an emergency by issuing a lot of debt, then gradually reducing that debt after the emergency is over…Consider, on the other hand, a government that is running big deficits even though there isn't an emergency. That's much more worrisome, because you have to wonder what will change to stop the soaring debt. In such a situation, markets are much more likely to conclude that any given debt is so large that it creates a serious risk of default. Now, back in 2003 I got very alarmed about the US deficit β€” wrongly, it turned out β€” not so much because of its size as because of its origin. We had an administration that was behaving in a deeply irresponsible way. Not only was it cutting taxes in the face of a war, which had never happened before, plus starting up a huge unfunded drug benefit, but it was also clearly following a starve-the-beast budget strategy… Compare and contrast the current situation. Most though not all of our current budget deficit can be viewed as the result of a temporary emergency. Revenue has plunged in the face of the crisis, while there has been an increase in spending largely due to stimulus and bailouts. None of this can be seen as a case of irresponsible policy, nor as a permanent change in policy. It's more like the financial equivalent of a war.

This reminds me of how my dad assured me he would beat his cancer because it was the good kind of cancer, not the bad kind. Then it turned out it was actually the bad kind of cancer, and he died. Certainly it's worse to have money committed on a permanent basis than it is to have the option of paying or not paying each year. But ultimately, every dollar you spend on credit has to be paid back with interest by somebody. Krugman's willingness to change his tune on deficit spending when it's the Democrats doing the spending is unseemly. But his honest belief—an astonishingly cavalier approach to deficit spending—is worse than his partisan positioning.

Advertisement

NEXT: Attn. D,C.-Area Reasonoids: Overdose, The Next Financial Crisis Premieres Tomorrow!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Silly Party or Sensible Party”?

    Shouldn’t that be the Silly Party and the Sillier Party? (I leave it to the reader to determine which is which.)

    Or, as the inimitable Kim du Toit labeled them, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party?

    1. I had to laugh at that. It’s a Monty Python bit.

      I’m voting for the very silly party next time.

      1. Good morning reason.

        1. I thought we stopped doing that.

          1. That was another one of John’s personalities.

            1. Are you still here?

              1. He is like a slut who just got gang banged the previous night on the pool table racking up on that very same table the next night even though everybody in the hall knows it.

                1. LOL that was a long anti-MNG comment, but worth it.

                  1. Wow, John’s got several of his personalities posting this weekend. Pharmacy must have cut him off…

                    1. When he gets ass raped, does he not feel it?

                    2. Happy Mother’s Day.

        2. Good morning fellow terrorists.

          No doubt we do terrify the political class, anything that threatens their strangle hold on power is a genuine terror to them.

          Still, what in the world is a “third” party supporter? Democrats and Republicans are one party, so aren’t we actually supporters of an alternative to the one party despite it’s two party charade? Wouldn’t that make us second party supporters?

    2. “Shouldn’t that be the Silly Party and the Sillier Party? (I leave it to the reader to determine which is which.)”

      The sillier party is usually the one in power.

    3. The Bloods and the Crips.

  2. Are you kidding me? Do you guys have morning rap sessions on the phraseology you’ll use for the day’s posts. Here’s an idea, instead of ripping off jokes from others, how about something from the libertarian perspective on the UK election. May be dismal, but what the fuck, it beats seeing silly sensible in a post over the weekend.

    1. how about something from the libertarian perspective on the UK

      OK. How’s this. I’ll use libertarian analysis to call the election results: you’re fucked.

      1. Whoa dude, knock it off. I’m watching silly art movies and downing port as part of my reality denial process …

        1. I’ll bet it’s some foreign movie about gay cowboys eating pudding…

          1. πŸ™‚

    2. I for one feel the ministry of silly walks needs more funding.

      There ya go, relative to the Brits and contains just the right amount of silly.

    3. Okay, which ones the libertarianish party in the UK? The names of all the parties that elected 0 PMs blur together. But yeah, there is my analysis…libertarians one zero seats. Although there is the seat of the dead guy, so there is still a chance.

  3. Deficits in tough times followed by surpluses in good times doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.

    1. No, it doesn’t. Instead, we get huge deficits in good times and gigantic deficits in bad times.

    2. Not as good as balanced budgets in tough times followed by tax cuts to erase surpluses in good times — you know, the exact opposite of what actually occurs.

    3. lemmy caution|5.7.10 @ 9:08PM|#
      “Deficits in tough times followed by surpluses in good times doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.”

      Like “real communism”, “real Keynesian economics” hasn’t been given a fair chance!
      And there are reasons for this: Communism requires the “new Soviet man”, while Keynesian economics requires governments to control spending.
      Fail on both. Never happened, never will.

      1. “real free market economics” hasn’t been given a fair chance!

        1. Quinoa Salad

          Ingredients (use vegan versions):

          3/4 cup uncooked quinoa
          1 can black beans, drained
          1 carrot, diced
          1 celery stalk, diced
          6 cherry tomatoes, quartered
          1 scallion, chopped
          2 cloves garlic, minced
          1 small cucumber
          juice from 1/2 lemon
          1/4 cup olive oil
          1/4 cup apple cider vinegar
          dash cayenne pepper
          dash cumin

          Directions:

          Boil quinoa in a rice cooker or saucepan with 1.5 cups of water until all water is absorbed. Set aside to cool.

          Combine all chopped veggies and drained beans with lemon juice, vinegar and spices. Toss with quinoa, add salt and pepper to taste and serve. Good with hot sauce!

          Source of recipe: I wanted to use up a bunch of ingredients, so I threw this together.

          Makes: serves two, with leftovers, Preparation time: 15 minutes, Cooking time: 15 minutes

          1. I recommend using fried salt pork, cracklings or at least bacon in “vegetarian” dishes that don’t have a suitable meat ingredient already (anchovies, animal-based stock,ham hock,fresh or smoked neck bones ,tasso, bacon drippings etc.)

          2. You forgot to add the cat!

        2. The neat thing about “real free markets” is that they managed to exist in all other markets. Even when illegal. The inverse has never been true.

          1. so since they exist under any conditions, why push for them?

            1. Bermuda Onion Soup

              Ingredients
              2 tablespoons butter
              2 tablespoons vegetable oil
              3 Bermuda onions, thinly sliced, about 5 cups
              2 cloves garlic, 1 minced, 1 sliced in half
              1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
              1 bay leaf
              8 cups chicken stock
              2 tablespoons Outerbridge’s Sherry Pepper Sauce (optional)
              16 thin slices French or italian bread
              1/2 cup grated mozzarella cheese

              DIRECTIONS
              In a stock pot or sauce pan large enough to hold all the ingredients, over medium heat, heat the butter and the oil together until the butter melts. Add the onions and saut? until the onions begin to turn a milky transparent white.

              Add the minced garlic, and saut? for 3 minutes more. Add the thyme and the bay leaf, and saut? for 1 minute. Add the chicken stock and the Sherry Pepper Sauce, bring the mixture to a boil, reduce to a simmer, and simmer for 30 minutes.

              While the soup is cooking, toast the slices of bread until they have a crisp surface. Rub one side of each slice with the cut surface of the sliced garlic clove.

              Preheat broiler. Remove the bay leaf from the soup. Ladle the soup into individual heat-proof serving bowls. Place two slices of bread on top of the soup. Sprinkle some of the mozzarella cheese on top of the bread. Melt the cheese under a broiler or in the oven. Serve the soup as soon as the cheese is melted.

              1. I predict that MNG will respond in a juvenile manner to you.

              2. Lyon Hall, the latest Clarendon addition from the Liberty Tavern/Northside Social team, is a casual, stylish and affordable neighborhood French brasserie that offers some 20 draft beers and plenty of wine to accompany Alsatian-inspired fare like house-cured charcuterie, mussels, spaetzle, krauts, trout schnitzel, housemade breads and serious desserts; set in a former trophy shop, the two-story setting includes a long narrow dining room, high tables fronted by huge windows and a marble bar downstairs, while an upstairs room is used to host private parties.

                1. You need to get to the clinic, bitch.

            2. Just because something is capable of overcoming everything thrown at it doesn’t meant throw everything at it. Maybe because the bastardized systems where portions of the market are captured due to government intervention have caused strife? Are you for strife and hardship oh compassionate MNG?

            3. …so since they exist under any conditions, why push for them?

              Since human beings can survive with HIV/AIDS and brain cancer, why would you want to avoid having these diseases?

        3. We’ve had this discussion already. The economies of the US 1880-1900 and Hong Kong 1955-1990 were close enough to free markets to show that free markets would, in fact, work, and work quite well.

          They would not, however, slaughter millions of people like the Marxist economies that you’re comparing them to. You apparently need to have this point explained to your repeatedly: most of the people who post here are minarchists, not anarchists. I can accept small tariffs on imported and exported goods to pay for defense forces.

          The only example of peaceful anarchy (that I know of) was medieval Iceland. It also wasn’t utopia, but it wasn’t bad compared to other European medieval countries.

          1. 1880-1900 is a pretty small time period, and wasn’t as free from government intervention as might think (think Jim Crow sitting pretty in a 1/3 of the country or Slaughterhouse type stuff).

            Hong Kong is a city. If we want to cite Hong Kong’s success under market policies I can cite NYC’s economiic dynamo under comparitively heavy regulation/intervention.

            1. Gluten Free Quiche Lorraine
              (you can try it with lobster)
              Ingredients

              * 8 ounces uncooked bacon, chopped
              * 6 ounces gruyere cheese or other swiss cheese, grated
              * 3 eggs
              * 12 ounces heavy cream or creme fraiche (For this, I’m partial to the creme fraiche. You can make your own. See my recipe for Creme Fraiche.)
              * 1/4 teaspoon salt
              * 1/2 teaspoon black pepper

              Directions
              1
              Cook chopped bacon in a heavy skillet with a little butter or olive oil until browned.
              2
              Remove the bacon from the skillet to a glass or paper plate lined with a couple paper towels.
              3
              Butter a 9″ glass pie dish.
              4
              Spread bacon and then the grated Gruyere in the pie plate.
              5
              Whisk together the eggs, creme fraiche, salt, and pepper.
              6
              Pour over the bacon and cheese, using a fork to gently distribute the bacon and cheese evenly.
              7
              Bake the quiche in a water bath in a 350F oven for 40 to 45 minutes or until a knife inserted near the center comes out clean.
              8
              Serve hot or at room temperature.
              9
              Note: A water bath is simply placing the dish to be cooked in a larger dish, then filling the larger dish with water to about 1″ from the top of the smaller dish, then bake.
              10
              Get the water ready to pour, place the uncooked quiche in the larger dish and then into the oven, and THEN pour the water in.
              11
              Be very careful pulling this out of the oven.
              12
              Move slowly so the hot water doesn’t slosh about.
              13
              Don’t pull your oven rack out with the dish on it unless your rack moves very smoothly or the water will slosh.

              1. Aren’t you so cute πŸ™‚

                1. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF

                  1. Pats head
                    Adorable!

            2. 1880-1900 is a pretty small time period, and wasn’t as free from government intervention as [you] might think…

              My main point is that the government intervention that occurred during 1880-1900 wasn’t necessary for the freer part of the market to work. Had it been absent, the market would have worked as well or better. Had the communist countries been more communist, more people would have starved – Kampuchea was probably the closest example of “pure” communism ever. (Since private property was completely illegal, I would say it was a true communist state.)

              The Jim Crow laws were ugly indeed, but my point’s the same: had they not existed, the free market would have continued to work as well or better than with them.

              While I see your point about NYC vis-a-vis HK, it isn’t immune to the effects of moronic policy. Gunner Myrdal (hardly a radical free marketer) once said that rent control was almost as effective as an atomic bomb at destroying property. I think you’re old enough to remember the pictures of rotting buildings during the 1970’s & 80’s. Were it not the entryway to the US for a lot of people, I think it would look a lot more like Detroit. California has many, many natural advantages, and businesses can’t leave the state fast enough.

              1. Baked
                Can you re-read your post and see how I think they come dangerously close to unfalsifiability?

                1. So, with this argument we can assume that MNG will never mention ‘unregulated cowboy capitalist on Wall Street’, or anything like that in future post given New York is a bastion of well meaning regulators with an army of bureaucrats under them keeping everything fined tune and in control.

                  Good to know.

                2. That’s a danger with any contra-historical conjecture. I would counter that the vast weight of historical evidence shows a clear, consistent correlation between freer economies and economic growth. No, it’s not the only factor, but it is almost certainly the most important.

                  Furthermore, I’m well aware that during that time period, it was not all sunshine and roses. There was a severe Depression in 1893. At one point, unemployment was around 17%. However, it lasted about four years – not ten like the Great Depression. Businesses were allowed to fail, and the government did not intervene anywhere near the extent they did in the Great Depression, or now, in the Great Recession.

                  I suspect the intervention currently taking place will prolong the recession to a painful extent. I definitely believe we are going to see a “double-dip”, if not a “triple-dip”. The mini-bubbles the government is propagating (in housing, in “green” industries, etc.) are going to pop, and it’s going to create further uncertainty. This will feed a vicious cycle, making people afraid to hire, invest, etc.

                  1. Baked
                    I actually agree it’s a positive correlation, and that it’s a strong one. But it’t not a perfect one and that alone is enough for me to be skeptical of market fundamentalism.

                    I get your point about the Great Depression. I guess I’m not sure I buy it because 1. iirc during the GD things did get better and then went back down in the mid-late 30’s, then shot up when the government really intervened heavily (WWII and beyond) and 2. I’m not sure I wouldn’t expect the Great Depression to have lasted longer than the one in 1893 as it was more severe than that one (hence it’s name).

                    ?
                    How regulated something is always relative. I hope nobody uses the term you cite honestly thinking the situation is “unregulated.” I’m hoping what they mean is that it was not regulated enough. There’s always some regulation.

                    1. Re: “market fundamentalism” should be be “freedom fundamentalism”. While we discuss markets, it’s really any non violent, consensual transactions that we’re discussing. “Markets” are a shorthand for that, because much behavior has an economic component, and most of that will take place in markets.

                      However, if people want to form communes and trade without the use of money and have no personal property, more power to them. The Farm is still around, and The Hutterites and the Amish are doing okay. More power to them.

                      Great Depression: Things got better in 1936, after the Supreme Court smacked down Roosevelt’s “alphabet soup” agencies. Companies started to feel safe investing and hiring again. Only after his threat to pack the Supreme Court was he able to revive those agencies. As soon as he did, unemployment rose again.

                      Also – did the Great Depression become the Great Depression because it was severe, or long-lasting? I doubt it was called the Great Depression in 1934 – because had it ended then, it would have merely been a very bad Depression. I suspect it became “Great” due to its length, which was a result of the economic policies of Roosevelt.

                      WWII was a unique situation. We haven’t seen anything like it, except for the first couple years after 9-11. Furthermore, much of the increase in employment occurred at what would have been considered at or below today’s minimum wage – by the government drafting men into the Army. It’s interesting that joining the Army voluntarily was an option for many of the legions of unemployed, and yet they did not do so. I honestly don’t know what to make of this.

                      Unfortunately, I really think there are a lot of modern progressives who think that there are “unregulated” free markets out there. On a talk show once, I remember some modern liberal using Brazil (!) as an example of why free markets don’t work. If you want to understand why libertarians can get frustrated and dismissive, and call progressives economically ignorant, well, that example is unfortunately very common.

                      AFAIC, I never stated that the economies I named were unregulated – rather that they were close enough to free markets that they could show the viability of truly free markets.

                      And as far as regulation is concerned, naturally, I think it should be limited to force and fraud, although I suspect we would have somewhat different definitions of what those are.

                    2. Here is a reprinted article from Barron’s, 1944, comparing military pay with civilian pay. The article writer slants his viewpoint in favor of the military, but it clearly shows how low military pay was in the 1940’s, even with the “freebies” (Oh, boy, a free bunk!).

                    3. WWII was a unique situation. We haven’t seen anything like it, except for the first couple years after 9-11.

                      What I was referring to here was the sense of community and shared purpose that Americans felt after the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the WTC.

                      Also, appy polly loggies for repeating “more power to them”

              2. You are being played, BP. Malone well instructed him in the The Parmenides’ Fallacy last weekend. His ignoring of that to create this context of comparing two cities without the factor of accumulated wealth being considered is an act of spite.

                Ignore him, for our sake, please.

  4. Agreed, the methodology isn’t air-tight, but the bottom line is that he shows these guys change their tunes when it suits them politically.

    The idea that deficits can be bad and then good within the span of a couple of years is just absurd.

    1. The way Krugman does it is interesting, using a bad analogy. OK, so a big war is a temporary emergency and calls for debt. But then Obama’s spending becomes “more like the financial equivalent of a war,” and we don’t have worry about it being irresponsible or permanent.

      But he hasn’t shown that the financial crisis is equivalent to a war. He hasn’t shown that more debt is the best way to fix it. He certainly hasn’t explained how paying salaries for public employees and propping up dying corporations is the best use of that extra debt. Oh, maybe we’d get lectures about how failures in some of the most heavily-regulated industries in the country (automaking, banking, insurance) can only be the fault of the “free market.” But in the end, it just sounds like he’s shilling for the latest version of a typical left/statist metaphorical battle: the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, fighting discrimination, etc. And history indicates that spending on those “wars” often is irresponsible and permanent.

      1. Well said.

  5. “Large budget deficits represent a burden on the future, and debt accumulation eventually poses great problems.”

    The following observation affects all sorts of disciplines–I’ve made the following point in some of Bailey’s threads talking about science, especially climate change…

    It’s a lot clearer when you’re talking about science, actually, but just like real scientists can’t tell us how much we should be willing to sacrifice in order to stop climate change–because that’s about personal ethics and values…

    Neither can economists tell us what we should value. So when you ask an economist public policy questions, well of course…

    If having a future with fewer wealthy people but where more of them have access to healthcare is important to a given economist–why wouldn’t that affect the answer he gives you on any public policy question?

    You know why Economics is the dismal science? Because it seems like every economist who’s come after Adam Smith has tried desperately to disprove Adam Smith’s central premises–and failed miserably.

    Adam Smith was right–no one can tell you what you should value, certainly not an economist! Your values are a function of experience and culture and personality–if you’re lookin’ for an economist to tell you what you should value more, you’re lookin’ at it all backwards…

    The good news is that we all do best when each of us has the freedom to pursue what we value most individually. And anybody that tells us anything different is just pushing their own values–how could public policy decisions weighed on a scale of what we value ever be more than that?

    1. Agreed; great points. Seems people are always looking for someone else to tell them what to value, and more and more we are trying to create a society that encourages this type of helplessness.

    2. You know why Economics is the dismal science? Because it seems like every economist who’s come after Adam Smith has tried desperately to disprove Adam Smith’s central premises–and failed miserably.

      Adam Smith was right–no one can tell you what you should value, certainly not an economist! Your values are a function of experience and culture and personality–if you’re lookin’ for an economist to tell you what you should value more, you’re lookin’ at it all backwards…

      [clears throat loudly, taps foot, gives Ken a funny look, mutters under breath] oh, really?

      1. Am I supposed to take from this that no one can tell us what should be important to us individually–except Austrians?

        Really, I don’t get it.

        That when it comes to questions of public policy, Austrians, unlike other mere mortals, don’t tend to fill in the variables with what’s important to them?

        Am I getting warmer? …cause I still don’t get it.

        1. Because it seems like every economist who’s come after Adam Smith has tried desperately to disprove Adam Smith’s central premises–and failed miserably.

          ^^^ This. If anything I made Smith’s concept more empirical through the theory of marginal utility. You should have at least gave me some props. What am I, chicken soup?

          1. I hope we’re not focusing on the trees and ignoring the forest here. I was talking about economists projecting their biases into unknown variables–questions like, “What should people care about?”

            Scope out from “Wealth of Nations” for a second and bring “Theory of Moral Sentiments” into the picture. …See what I’m talking about? There’s nothing any climate change scientists can ever observe under a microscope or from a satellite image that will ever prove we should care more about future generations than ourselves. …or that we should care more about people who live on the coasts or in heavily affected areas. …or vica versa, that we should care more about ourselves than other people or animals–and that’s because what we should care about isn’t a scientific question.

            And what I’m trying to say is that when we’re listening to economists talk about public policy, they can’t help but have crossed that line. Any time anyone talks about what we should value more or what we should care about less, how can it not be biased?

            It’s hard to talk about this without falling into some kind of semantic trap–at least for me it is–but what I’m trying to get across is that you can’t talk about what people should do, what they should care about–like public policy questions necessarily and always do–without assuming some bias. And it isn’t just when Krugman does it either…

            I have a hard time trying to get the point across to my fellow libertarians sometimes too that free markets isn’t a government policy to be imposed on people. Ultimately, we’re just talking about values too.

  6. Highjack, just because it is *soooooooo* predictable:
    “Butchers beware: Venezuela cracks down on prices” (no beef)
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..143D45.DTL

  7. This video is great! The No Apology Song: http://mittromneycentral.com/2…..greatness/

    The more people that hear this, the better. It’s not too late to wake up Americans so we can bring America back! Let’s spread this everywhere we can!

    1. As governor, Mitt Romney signed an Obamacare-like bill that inflicted socialized medicine on the people of his state. I do not want him anywhere near the White House. We need someone who would be willing to repeal Obamacare.

    2. Oh!! The humanity, the humanity…a fucking Romney troll. With a video nonetheless…make it stop…anything, I’ll do anything to make it stop. Bring back lonewacko, edward whatever it takes.

      Dan! That video is shit! Go fuck yourself! WAKE UP PEOPLE,

      …capitol l must pause to puke in his pants…

      Let’s spread this everywhere we can!

      Fucking gross! yippee!!! How about I spread it on your face, bitch! Go America, lol…

    3. The more people that hear this, the better. It’s not too late to wake up Americans

      This comment has all the markings of something my father forwards to me once a week, which I promptly delete. He keeps promising me that he’ll stop doing it. In his defense, he might be going insane. I just hope it’s the “good” insane.

      1. Much better. I’d like to see an Obama version. “It’s not too late to apologize…”

    4. You know what would be better? If the guy’s timeline in the song were accurate.

    5. Romney is a little too comfortable with Leviathan. I want someone who will roll back the intrusive Central State, not manage it more efficiently.

      1. Romney and Scott Brown are about the best you can expect from Republicans elected from Deep Blue Massachusetts, which is to say RINO Republicans who at best are going to be marginally less evil than their opponents.

        Neither is anyone I’d want in the White House, but then the last person I heartily approved of in the White House was an old school Democrat, Grover Cleveland. (Ronald Reagan didn’t suck as bad as those who preceded him or followed him, but fell short of the “heartily approve” mark for me).

  8. Gah! Not that picture again!

    1. I look forward to the Horrible Recurring Nightmare later tonight.

      1. The one where Krugman roofies you, and then after you’ve passed out, he strips you naked and rubs his beard all over your body?

  9. None of this can be seen as a case of irresponsible policy, nor as a permanent change in policy. It’s more like the financial equivalent of a war.

    A war, in the “classic” sense, ends.

  10. Dear Dan-

    Fuck off.

    1. +1…I hate lazy shills.

  11. Cavanaugh, you aren’t worthy of eating the peanuts out of Paul Krugman’s shit, you low-grade market fundamentalist fuckwit.

    1. Max|5.7.10 @ 10:23PM|#
      “Cavanaugh, you aren’t worthy of eating the peanuts out of Paul Krugman’s shit, you low-grade market fundamentalist fuckwit.”

      Oh, goodness! Max has learned to swear while posting bullshit!
      Way to go Max! You sewer-sucking fuckwit.

    2. Enjoy this delicious no-fail lobster quiche.

      Ingredients
      1-1/2cups cups(375 mL) (375 mL) all-purpose flour
      1/2tsp tsp(2 mL) (2 mL) salt
      1/4cup cup(50 mL) (50 mL) cold butter, cubed
      1/4cup cup(50 mL) (50 mL) cold shortening, cubed
      1 egg yolk
      1 tsp(5 mL) (5 mL) white vinegar

      Filling:
      1 can (4 oz/115g)lobster meat
      3/4cup (175 mL) whipping cream
      3 eggs
      1 cup(250 mL) (250 mL) shredded Jarlsberg cheese

      Preparation:

      In large bowl, combine flour with salt. Using pastry blender or 2 knives, cut in butter and shortening until mixture resembles coarse crumbs with a few larger pieces. In measuring cup, stir egg yolk with vinegar; add enough ice water to make 1/3 cup (75 mL). Pour over flour mixture, stirring with fork until pastry holds together. Press into disc; wrap in plastic wrap and refrigerate for at least 30 minutes or until chilled.

      On lightly floured surface, roll out pastry to 1/4-inch (5 mm) thickness; fit into 9-inch (23 cm) pie plate. Trim and flute edge. Line pastry shell with parchment paper or foil; fill evenly with pie weights or dried beans. Bake in centre of 375?F (190?C) oven for 15 minutes. Remove weights and paper; prick bottom and side of shell all over with fork. Bake for 10 minutes or until bottom is light golden.

      Filling: Meanwhile, drain lobster, reserving liquid in bowl; chop lobster meat coarsely. Add whipping cream and eggs to liquid; whisk until well combined. Stir in lobster.

      Sprinkle cheese over pie shell; pour in lobster mixture. Bake in centre of 325?F (160?C) oven for about 45 minutes or until edge is set and centre still slightly jiggly. Let quiche stand for 5 minutes. (Quiche can be covered and refrigerated for up to 4 hours; serve at room temperature.)
      Additional Information

      Tip: Cans of lobster are also called hot pack. Check at gourmet stores or fish shops. If hot-pack lobster is not available, use entire can (11.3 oz/320 g) frozen lobster, drained, discarding liquid. Use 1 cup (250 mL) 18% cream instead of whipping cream and lobster juices.

      *This is fun!

      1. Got any gluten-free recipes for this?

        1. see upthread

          1. mucho thanks

      2. Am I the only poster who thinks this recipe-posting-in-response-to-shills shtick has gotten old incredibly quickly?

        1. Please Ted, we’re talking about dim bulbs here. They get an idea they think is cute, they gotta play it out!

          1. Bad Faith Sesame Chicken

            2 large boneless skinless chicken breasts
            1 tablespoons raw sesame seeds
            3 green onions (sliced )
            Marinade-
            1/2 cup chicken broth
            ? teaspoon salt
            1/2 tablespoon sesame oil
            ground white pepper (to taste)
            1 table spoon brown sugar
            1 tablespoon rice wine
            1 tablespoon balsamic vinegar
            Batter-
            ? cup all purpose flour
            1 teaspoon baking powder
            1 egg (beaten)
            ? cup water (or as much as needed to make batter smooth)
            3 tablespoons cornstarch
            salt (to taste)
            1 tablespoon vegetable oil
            Sauce-
            3 tablespoons brown sugar
            3 tablespoons sugar
            salt (to taste)
            2 tablespoons ketchup
            1 tablespoon white distilled vinegar
            a sprinkle of ground black pepper

            Cut chicken breasts into 1″ chunks and in a glass bowl combine all of the marinade ingredients and mix well. Add the chicken and coat evenly. Cover and marinade for 30 minutes in the refrigerator.

            In another bowl combine all of the batter ingredients and mix thoroughly. Set to the side.
            Using tongs remove the pieces of chicken from the marinade and dip them into the batter to coat evenly.

            Deep fry the chicken in batches in your deep fryer for about 10 minutes or until golden brown. Drain on paper towels.

            In your skillet or wok combine the sauce ingredients and warm over medium heat. Bring to a boil while stirring and simmer until sauce slightly thickens.

            Garnish with sliced scallions and sesame seeds.

            1. On May 12, Zahav chef Michael Solomonov will have chef David Katz of M?m? join him in the kitchen for a “One Night in Morocco” feast, served family-style throughout the restaurant. Expect options such as Moroccan- style hummus, mezes like sardines with chermoula, phyllo cigars stuffed with meat, beef and lamb meatballs poached with celery and peas, and dafina, otherwise known as traditional Sabbath stew (5?10 PM; $45 per person; 215-625-8800).

          2. ARFARFARFTHROWTHESTICKARFARFARFARFARF

      3. Want something Hearty for dinner? That can be arranged. Starting today, the Hearty Boys begin offering prix fixe menus at their Lakeview restaurant on Thursday nights. Featuring six-courses for $45 per person, or seven for $52, each meal also can include wine pairings for an additional $15. Highlights include maple-glazed miniature pork ribs with wasabi mashed potatoes and lingonberry-stuffed veal meatballs with tarragon sweet pea pur?e and shoestring potatoes (773-868-9866; reserve online).

    3. Max, did you get our pee pee stepped on by a Libertarian in the past? Why so angry?

      1. I’m guessing it’s difficult to step on Max’s peep.

        Mine, on the other hand, is regularly tripped over by passers-by.

      2. AA|5.7.10 @ 10:45PM|#
        “Max, did you get our pee pee stepped on by a Libertarian in the past? Why so angry?”
        S/he’s *still* pissed about 1989. Why, it was the “FUTURE”! And Max confronted the reality that all the stuff momma promised for free took EFFORT!
        Max is a brain-dead lefty; no more, no less.

      3. I suspect Max is just somebody who only knows what his grandpa told him about libertarians.

        They stray in here a lot, actually, and some of them, even the trolls, have come around sometimes–even if they’ll never admit it.

        Dude trolls us long enough, and he’ll learn a few things and realize how silly that is…’cause it is silly.

        I wasn’t around when joe left, so I don’t know why he left, exactly, but I always suspected that having engaged libertarians on a daily basis for so long, some of it must have rubbed off on him. And that must have been kinda disturbing for him…

        Dial down on the harsh reaction and watch the magic happen–there’s stuff this Max dude hasn’t even thought of yet. His grandpa (or whoever) probably wasn’t such a bad dude. I’m sure he meant well anyway.

        And that’s a start.

        1. Most people like it rough. It is a sign that you care. If you don’t throw in an occasional ‘fuck off’, or ‘eat shit and die’ in there, they think you are apathetic and dismiss your comments as being too half hearted.

          That is my m. o. for those I’m not familiar with who may not actually be trolls but are misguided individuals instead. For the hopeless cases, I try to ignore them.

          If you read between the lines or read their comments over a protracted period of time it becomes apparent that some of our regular troll stock depend on government largesse for their employment.

          If a large segment of public employment was wiped out due to free market reforms, they really do stand a good chance of being directly effected negatively just as those of us who make an honest buck are negatively effected by their chosen means of employment (in the broadest connotation of that word — the choices one makes to be materially sustained).

          In these cases, you really have an enemy you should be wary of instead of a well met fellow with whom you have a mere intellectual disagreement.

    4. How do you know Krugy has peanuts in his shit? I figured it would be hard to see with your head up his as and the lack of light. Are you going by feel?

    5. I see your fellatio obsession has been replace with a scat fetish.

    6. Your left handed defense of Krugman says all I need to know about you. Moron.

    7. Your left handed defense of Krugman says all I need to know about you. Moron.

  12. The Doctor? Not that guy. I’m pretty sure the real Doctor can actually solve problems. He also has a time machine.

    1. And a semi-hot new Scottish redheaded assistant. It is rather insulting to compare Krugy to The Doctor. The Daleks would own Krugy by simply assimilating his views with theirs. Since the views aren’t too far apart in ideology.

    2. Dr. Who sucks donkey balls.

      That is all.

      1. Agreed – I never got it. I tried, wasted a few hours watching some seriously low-rent sci-fi, but the best thing I can say about Dr. Who is that is has an awesome theme song.

        1. While I don’t care for Dr. Who, I will say that he is far better than Dr. Krugman. And if it could somehow remove Krugman from the public sphere, I would watch every episode ever created.

      2. philistine

        1. A person called a Philistine (in the relevant sense), is said to despise or undervalue art, beauty, intellectual content, or spiritual values. Since Dr. Who is none and contains none of these things, I should not be called a Philistine.

          1. Have you watched the Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker Doctors Who (3rd and 4th) or just the post 2005 show?

            1. Whichever one I saw sucked donkey balls.

              That is all.

              1. People often ask me if I watch Dr. Who. And I always say no, I have no interest in a show in which the lead actor is replaced fifty times a year.

                “But the thing is that he regenerates, it’s a reincarneted doctor” or whatever BS is always their response. Yeah, whatever, I don’t care.

      3. Dr. Who is the shiznit.

        The new series doesn’t do anything for me, but in the ’70s, the series was awesome.

  13. there seems to be a very strong correlation between the number of citations he has for a given economist and the economist’s tune-changing

    More dishonest and pliant economists are more-published.

  14. Dr. Krugman’s never-fail,yowling adultation of whatever the Democratic Party has in mind for the nation this week, reminds me very much of an old joke the Soviets told ( quietly) toward the end of the Stalin regime.

    People were used to staging the appropriate “spontaneous demonstrations of approval” on receiving the appropriate signals. So much so, that when the rumor gained credence that the Soviet government was going to institute flogging to improve productivity, the party faithful turned out in the streets with signs saying things like “Through Flogging to a Better Future,”, and “Engineers Demand More Whipping For Their Extra Contributions to Socialism.”

    Big Brother can’t propose something so outrageous that Krugman won’t support it. But then again,he was one of the principal economic advisers to Enron, wasn’t he?

    1. Hold on… I’m writing this down.

  15. Wow, I would expect something more Reasonable from a magazine that calls themselves Reason.

    Isn’t apparent from the last crash that free market capitalism has failed?

    Why are you harshin’ on Obama, he is just cleaning up Bush’s mess.

    Hey you Paultards, if you like gold so much why don’t you Marry it?

    (Not trolling, just looking for a good non-pasta vegetarian recipe.)

    1. The first one means that all you get is:

      Drink!

      1. Spit it out right now. No drink if it was intentional.

        1. Spit it out right now.

          Those are words I have never, ever used, especially on a date.

    2. No, it’s apparent from the last crash that government screwing around with the money supply, the mortgage market, and both parties being in bed with banking doesn’t work.

      The mess started way before Bush. And if you haven’t noticed, it’s still there. If Obama’s got a broom he’s been kind of slow in bringing it. We’re now even more in bed with the financial, auto, and other industries and the economy is still based on bad debt. And to solve this, wait for it….more bad debt!

      Gold sucks as an investment vehicle. As a backer of a monetary system it’s not as bad as allowing a floating currency based on nothing but fiat.

      1. In your haste to post a reply, a well reasoned reply at that, you neglected to read Banjo’s last sentence.

    3. Not trolling, just looking for a good …..vegetarian recipe.

      Eh? Same difference.

  16. Good stuff. I remember reading an article by Krugman about Milton Friedman. Krugman’s assessment was basically that Friedman was great when he was doing proper economic research, and quite bad and simplistic when he was writing pamphlets and trying to engage with the public. Oh the Ironing.

    1. Found it. A sample:

      “While Friedman’s theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there’s much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.”

      More hilarity here:
      http://www.nybooks.com/article…..-friedman/

      1. Holy shit. Friedman questioning anyone’s intellectual honesty is humorous. His questioning someone as far superior intellectually and ethically to him as Milton Friedman, is disgusting.

  17. weak sauce:

    * 6 tablespoons all purpose flour
    * 3 cups low-fat (1%) milk
    * 1/4 teaspoon ground nutmeg
    * 1/3 cup grated Parmesan cheese
    * 1 large egg, beaten to blend
    * 1 teaspoon butter

    Whisk flour in heavy medium saucepan to remove any lumps. Gradually add 1 cup milk, whisking until smooth. Add remaining 2 cups milk and nutmeg; whisk over medium heat until mixture thickens and boils, about 10 minutes. Remove from heat. Whisk in Parmesan, egg and butter. Season with salt and pepper. (Can be made 1 day ahead. Cover and refrigerate. Rewarm over low heat until heated through before using; do not boil.)

    1. A year in, chef Jason McLeod of Gold Coast spot Ria is now offering a spring-focused, five-course tasting menu including yellowfin tuna with osetra caviar, ramps, and grapefruit and milk-fed veal confit with morels, asparagus and foie gras for $87 per person. Optional wine pairings from sommelier Dan Pilkey are an additional $45. Not enough for you? We’ve got the restaurant current full dinner menu, after the jump (312-880-4400).

  18. the methodology is a joke. i’m sure you have a recipe in which you can include the peanuts from the good doctor’s shit.

    FREE MARKET SALAD

    -a cup of peanuts

    -a solid base of rigid ideology immune to new information

    -dash of efficient market hypothesis

    -the final 11 pages from “dow 30,000”

    -eye of von hayek and nut of von mises

    -voodoo chant

    -liberal dose of willful ignorance

    -season with greed and lack of empathy to taste

    brew for decades in a pot that called the kettle black.

    serves that 20% of the population

    1. I would contend that your recipe is a stew, rather than a salad.

      1. More like an aborted fetus stuffed with straw.

      2. That is more a recipe for straw than soup or salad, capitol l.

    2. “eye of von hayek and nut of von mises”

      I said vegetarian. Ohh well fake trollers can’t be choosers.


    3. -the final 11 pages from “dow 30,000”

      -eye of von hayek and nut of von mises

      Amateur. Those ingredients don’t mix.

    4. Im willing to bet $30000 that the Dow hits 30000. If it does, you pay me on that day. If it never does, I will pay you, um, you know, at the heat death of the universe.

      1. And I’ll shake on that . . . [pulls hand away] Ha! Nice try.

        The Dow will likely hit 30000 in our lifetimes. Maybe even ten, but I suspect within twenty five years is more reasonable.

        It is the underlying idea of that book that the normative laws of economics have been suspended by the New Economy, a rather progressivist concept, that I was pointing out in stating that those elements do not mix with Hayek and Mises. You can count on a snarky progressive not knowing that. Otherwise, why would they remain market bashers if they were not fueled by ignorance in the first place?

        1. In the January 2000 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Glassman and Hassett replied to a critic of their theory that “if the Dow is closer to 10,000 than to 36,000 ten years from now (i.e. if the Dow is below 23,000 in January 2010), we will each give $1,000 to the charity of your choice.” On January 1st, 2010, it opened at 10,428.05.

          Glassman and Hassett believe that both investors and official commentators have misperceived stocks as a risky investment which should require a premium return, when compared to ‘safe’ investments such as government bonds.

          If stocks and bonds were treated as equally risky, Glassman and Hassett argue, the Dow Jones index would be around 36000. Hence, anyone who gets in now and stays for the long haul, can expect returns of around 300 per cent (in addition to the normal interest rate) as the rest of the market wakes up. Once this historic correction is over, the efficient-market hypothesis will hold sway,.

          the underlying idea of the book is that by now the dow would be @ 36,000, and people like you would be sitting on a pile of gold coins ala scrooge mcduck.

          the book was wrong and so are you.

          of course the ingredients of your voodoo brew do not mix. that’s the point and why it’s such a vile concoction, watson.

          1. The fact that I reject the Glassman and Hassett thesis went over your little head. So sad to see so much effort put into a willful exercise in misunderstanding.

          2. the underlying idea of the book is that by now the dow would be @ 36,000, and people like you would be sitting on a pile of gold coins ala scrooge mcduck.

            It is amazingly ignorant that you would think an Austrian would buy into bubblicious thinking like that. Do yourself a favor before you put words to print, learn something first.

    5. That was actually pretty funny, and this is coming from someone who’s a free-market advocate.

      1. If you take out the cringe inducing parts, the projection and the morality tale narrative substituting for secular rationality, you are not really left with anything to laugh at.

  19. Y’all check out my new PG-rated (for now) “porn” blog on tumblr.

    1. Where’s the pr0n???

      1. The Prons are in District 9. And I think it’s spelled prawns.

    2. If you want straight dudes to look at your porn, don’t think “vintage”, think naked big-ass titties, naked big-ass titties, naked big-ass titties.

      It’s like that location thing for real estate, but with titties.
      Bouncing naked big-ass titties touching other naked big-ass titties is like the beach front property of the porn world.

      1. Naked big asses work for a lot more men than you might think, too.

    3. Ignore them SIV, vintage pinup rocks?.but keep in mind that I am a hedro female, which is probably not your target market.

      1. “hedro”? There may be a market for that. Some of the most profitable porn is in the “niche” market.

        Sorry, you left yourself open for that.

        1. Nice. There were so many directions to go with that, but you chose wisely. I would have gone with “Looking at SIV’s track record it would appear as though hedro females are in fact NOT his target audience.” Or something like that.

          1. It should get better. I’m planning some “theme” posts and if I get really motivated there will be my own scans that aren’t currently on the internet in any form.I’m trying to keep it tasteful(LOL!) and moderately SFW.

            1. Nothing wrong with tasteful. I have several books of classic pinups. It is a lost art, very much worth preserving. I have always found that pinups make me feel sexy. It has a way of making me want to wear corsets, do my hair up, and make myself look beautiful. I think it has to do with how it celebrates the natural female form.

              1. Cool. Bryan Ferry approves.

              2. Hmm. That is no way near the mental image I have of you. I may have to ponder your comment further.

          2. For being a good sport I will divulge my recipe for spinach pies as made by my boss, who is a chef from Beirut.

            These are vegetarian, but can be made vegan by omitting the feta cheese. Instead of dough he uses tortillas for an easy snack, make dough if you wish.
            All ingredients must be fresh, no frozen.
            for 8 pies
            chop all ingredients very fine

            in a mixing bowl(not metal)
            add
            1 chop .25-.50 large spanish onion
            2 chop 3 banana peppers
            3 chop .5 package fresh dill
            4 crumble 3-4 blocks 1″ cubes feta cheese
            5 squeeze juice of one fresh lemon
            6 one bag baby spinach
            salt and pepper to taste
            add olive oil- about two tablespoons, till mixes evenly

            take mixture and roll into large burritos, fold in edges.

            brush with olive oil lightly, and bake a 400f for about 10- til golden brown
            flip bush other side and bake til golden brown.

            Use hummus as a dip, or make a sourcream dip with mint and garlic.

            1. That sounds delicious. If we were to take the unholy vegetarian out of it, what meat would you propose would go well with that feta? I’m thinking of a game bird, even the shredded meat of a Cornish hen would be nice if we were to have basted it with olive oil and lemon pepper before adding to the dish..

              1. Sticking with the Lebanese thing, lamb shank can be had on the cheap. Simply boil the shanks in water with spices of your choice, no acids though as it will toughen the meat. The meat can then be pulled off the bone and shredded like poultry, and included with the spinach mix.

                1. Good advice about the acids too. I know grillers who don’t realize that that is the purpose of a rub being to tenderize while avoiding acidic disfiguring of meat. I’m not so proud that I wont admit I learned that from watching Booby Flay a decade ago or so.

                  1. Bobby Flay, for all his dickishness the man can grill.

                    1. lol! I just saw what I did with his name. just a typo, and a Freudian Slip.

                    2. Dang, I didn’t even see that, another golden opportunity passes by…

                      Did you post that after reading my reply to SIV’s original post, perhaps?

                    3. Actually just after reading Banjos Kick Ass! post that mentioned corsets. Those really do it for me. I was tempted to wake my girlfriend up but she would have stabbed me if I did.

                    4. Corsets?

                    5. Oh, guess I should scroll up once and awhile. Damn banjos, getting all late night cinemax on us.

                    6. Yup. This is what she posted earlier —

                      Banjos Kick Ass!|5.8.10 @ 2:00AM|#

                      Nothing wrong with tasteful. I have several books of classic pinups. It is a lost art, very much worth preserving. I have always found that pinups make me feel sexy. It has a way of making me want to wear corsets, do my hair up, and make myself look beautiful. I think it has to do with how it celebrates the natural female form.

                2. Jeez, I failed to mention the fucking meat pies they make, they will make you take back shit you never stole.

                  It is dough rounded out to personal pizza size topped with ground goat, spices, lemon, onion, and hot peppers. Very simple, as most good food is, and very easy.

                  If you cannot find goat, lamb, beef or pork can be substitute…use the goat though trust me.

                  1. I had a Palestinian friend who cooked those. If I didn’t have my head stuck up my ex-wife’s ass, whom I was dating at the time, the chances of marrying her instead were about one hundred percent.

                    1. We should all marry the girl who is a friend, and not the girlfriend.

                    2. If only it were that simple cap l.

                    3. By “friend”, you mean side-action, right? Too late for me. I’ll never know what might have been.

                      (filling the bath tub now…)

                    4. Hate to disappoint my truant fellows, but I never so much as seen her naked. Saw her in a bikini dozens of times. Big ass titties. Tiny waist. And did I mention big ass titties. I still have the letter she wrote me to convince me to leave my then fiancee. Did I mention big ass titties?

                      (filling the bath tub now…)

              1. I am fond of Bolivian cuisine myself.

                1. Sir? What the fuck? Are you some kind of royalist now?

                  Love it or leave it man, love it or leave it.

                  My girlfriend is in Peru right now, she says the food is really good. The other day she had guinea pig, said it was tasty.

                  1. Royalist? LOL nah. Just my accentuating my sartorial tastes in cuisine, I was hoping to leave you in stitches!

                    (rimshot)

                    Seriously though, skimming the H&R has shown me some excellent recipes. The Trolls truly have a function now. As they say “Feed a troll, starve a fever.”

                    (rimshot)

                    Thank you I’ll be here all week!

            2. For being a good sport I will divulge my recipe for spinach pies as made by my boss, who is a chef from Beirut.

              I shit you not that the best chef I ever met was a Canadian. He ran the kitchen of a high end private club known for sponsoring golf tourneys. I know, you don’t think Canadian when you think cuisine, but he was a bit different from his fellow country men. His heart was made of pure evil and black malice which makes all the difference in the world between a mediocre cook (good well meaning folk) and a great cook.

            3. Thank you capitol, I love spinach.

              1. When did H&R become a cooking show?

                1. when the trolls got hungrier

                  1. Have you noticed that the Food and Travel channels, especially the Travel channel, after showing human American pigs shoveling crappy food down their throats in enormous portions all week, have weight-loss programming on Saturday morning?

                  2. After a hiatus following a fire, Annisa, Anita Lo’s flagship New American in the Village, has reopened with a lightly refreshed decor and an updated menu (and bar menu); some of the new items on the menu were inspired by the Top Chef Masters toque’s travels while the restaurant was closed.

                    1. Asshole

    4. The title is snappy.

      The “pr0n” is lame.

      Try searching metbabes dot com for something considerably less lame.

      1. prole, not everyone likes the harder stuff you enjoy.

        Of course, I’m a pr0n wuss. I still think Playboy’s worth looking at.

        1. To each his own. My eyes still enjoy Playboy pictorials on both aesthetic and sexual grounds, but my penis is screaming at me, ‘where are the holes!’ It if it wasn’t for him, I would almost make for tolerant company, most days.

        2. metbabes is softcore stuff, not even close to hardcore like friktube (FREE HD!)

          But, sure, whatever works for anyone is good.

  20. I like how leftists now pretend that George Bush was “increasing deficit spending during the good years.” All they did when Bush was in office was bitch that about the economy and refer to the recover from the 01-02 recession as “the slowest since Herbert Hoover was in office.” Their Ingsoc-like reversals are giving me whiplash. Although, if the Republicans were in power they would probably be doing the same exact thing.

    1. Leave the poor man alone already.

      Can’t you see that he is feeding…amoeba style.

    2. The story behind that picture is even more revealing.

    3. He looks like a paranoid schizophrenic to me.

  21. actually, Krugman has always said that defecits are acceptable for good purpose.
    To stop a world depression is ok. To fund Bush family chums DUH not so much

    What Bush did with the Clinton surplus illustrated what one might expect in the future from that party.

    Why, for God’s sake, repair the plumbing if the next tenants are going to steal it for the copper.

    1. actually, Krugman has always said that defecits are acceptable for good purpose.
      To stop a world depression is ok. To fund Bush family chums DUH not so much

      How does spending stop a world depression?

      1. It props up total demand for all goods and services. Governments can really only cut their spending by cutting jobs, resulting in unemployed people who can’t afford to buy anything, leading to reduced tax revenues and reduced profits for other businesses, which leads to further jobs cuts, etc.

        It’s a downward cycle that leads to massive depressions, as happened in the 1930s.

        1. It props up total demand for all goods and services. Governments can really only cut their spending by cutting jobs, resulting in unemployed people who can’t afford to buy anything, leading to reduced tax revenues and reduced profits for other businesses, which leads to further jobs cuts, etc.

          So if an individual is in financial straits, all he has to do is max out all of his credit cards and he will be fine?

        2. It props up total demand for all goods and services.

          Has little to do with the productive basis of an economy. If you wish to understand why the Keynesian model is wrong, I recommend that you read George Reisman’s Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.

          consumption expenditure is not the main form of spending in the economic system and does not pay the national income or gross domestic product. I’ve shown that most spending in the economic system [after he exhaustively went through the problems inherent in the Samuelsonesque equations of the modern Keynesian order] is in fact concealed under the head of net investment. However modest in size, including possibly being actually negative, net investment represents the true source of most revenue and income. That source is productive expenditure, which, I showed, is expenditure for the purpose of making subsequent sales and is represented by the spending of business firms for capital goods of all descriptions and for labor. (Consumption expenditure, in contrast, I showed is expenditure not for the purpose of making subsequent sales.)

          The idea that you can willy nilly (or ex nihilo to be more precise) replace capital formation with spending is not a sane proposition. The categorizations that arise from that sort of nonsense belong to the mathematical models of a pre-Helenese mystery cult more than they are fit to be products of a secular study.

          Governments can really only cut their spending by cutting jobs, resulting in unemployed people who can’t afford to buy anything

          It spikes the unemployment of a segment of the population whose resource utilization weighs down the productive economy. The unemployment of this sector becomes a net beneficiary to all other sectors.

          leading to reduced tax revenues

          The tax revenue generated from state employees is a fraction of what they take as state employees so this is absurd.

          reduced profits for other businesses

          Coffee shops and restaurants in Georgetown would certainly suffer, but they currently benefit at the expense of long suffering coffee shops and restaurants in towns and cities that in the aggregate serve a private clientele. It is a trade off that is well worth taking, as the weight of government burden weighs even more heavily during the lean years than it does during the more profitable ones.

          It’s a downward cycle that leads to massive depressions, as happened in the 1930s.

          Sorry, I am not going to hold your hand through this. Too much scholarship has shown the moralistic fantasy you were told in sixth grade American History about the causes and the cures for the Great Depression for you to be earnestly repeating those fabrications now.

        3. More from George Reisman’s Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics:

          Keynesian Macroeconomics Plays with Half a Deck: Inadequacy of GDP

          What all of the preceding discussion implies is that Keynesian macroeconomics is literally playing with half a deck. It purports to be a study of the economic system as a whole, yet in ignoring productive expenditure it totally ignores most of the actual spending that takes place in the production of goods and services. It is an economics almost exclusively of consumer spending, not an economics of total spending in the production of goods and services.

          An accounting aggregate that would be far more appropriate to a genuine macroeconomics is what I have called gross national revenue (GNR). This is the sum of all business sales revenues plus wage payments. It also equals the sum of the consumption and productive expenditures that actually pay it.

          Imagine an equation in which the sales revenues and wage incomes that constitute GNR appear on the left-hand side, while the consumption and productive expenditures that actually pay those sales revenues and wages appear on the right-hand side. If one then subtracts the aggregate of the costs that appear in business income statements from the left-hand side of the equation, sales revenues reduce to profits, and GNR thus reduces to national income. If one subtracts these costs from the right-hand side, productive expenditure reduces to net investment, and consumption expenditure plus productive expenditure reduce to consumption plus net investment.

          Now if, instead of subtracting all costs on both sides, one subtracts all costs with the exception of depreciation, GNR reduces to GDP. That is, on the right-hand side, it will reduce to consumption expenditure plus what contemporary economics terms gross investment (a “gross” investment, incidentally, one of whose components is explicitly described as the net change ? the net investment ? in inventories).

          Thus, it turns out that GDP falls far short of a measure of the aggregate expenditure for goods and services. It falls short by an amount equal to the sum of all costs of goods sold in the economic system plus all of the expensed productive expenditures in the economic system. It is these costs which must be added to GDP to bring it up to a measure of the actual aggregate amount of spending for goods and services in the economic system.

          Adding cost of goods sold to contemporary economics’ “gross investment” would bring it up to true gross investment: that is, not only gross investment in plant and equipment but also gross investment in inventory as well. Adding expensed productive expenditures to this true gross investment would raise the latter up to productive expenditure.

        4. “It’s a downward cycle that leads to massive depressions, as happened in the 1930s.”

          Nonsense, aggregate consumption declining didn’t cause the great depression. It was the bursting of an asset bubble that caused the GD, thanks to cheap money from the fed. After WW1, the money supply worldwide was expanded artificially, by quite a large margin. Then, the bubble burst in 1929, leading to a massive contraction. This contraction might have turned around, if the economy had been allowed to liquidate until the money supply actually began to reflect real supply and demand, but Hoover himself initiated the first, anti-liquidation measures that prevented this from occurring. Hoover tried to prop up agricultural prices, cut off foreign competition, and expand credit to even more failed industries and businesses. FDR even accused Hoover of being a socialist before he became president! Hoover cut taxes and increased deficit spending, and then quickly raised them after being accused of being too spendthrift. Hoover was not some free market liquidationist, but a big government interventionist who believed in propping up demand and failed loans.

          Your keynesian understanding of the Great Depression proves your own ignorance. And don’t think that this is libertarian propaganda, as most of what I have written can be found on wikipedia under “Herbert Hoover.”

    2. barry|5.8.10 @ 6:26AM|#
      “What Bush did with the Clinton surplus…”

      There was no “surplus”.

    3. The taxing and the spending helped cause a nasty recession to turn into the Great Depression.

      Phrase it as “To stop a world depression and create prosperity by, essentially, digging holes and then filling them up is OK” and see if you can spot the flaw in that sentence, barry.

  22. Sounds reasonable to me dude.

    Lou
    http://www.anonymous-web-surfing.cz.tc

  23. Sounds pretty reasnable to me dude.

    Lou
    http://www.anonymous-web-surfing.cz.tc

  24. SOnds reasoanble to me dude.

    Lou
    http://www.being-anonymous.at.tc

  25. I was against deficit spending before I was for it.

    That is all.

  26. I am fond of Bolivian cuisine myself.

    But it’s so hard to get to sleep…

  27. Very disappointing post coming the great Tim Cavanaugh. As barry notes above, most economists view deficit spending to fight a recession/depression as justified.

    You save your harvest in the good times to fight famine in the bad times. An obvious point; I’m just flummoxed that Tim, or the author of that shoddy study, didn’t get this.

    1. As barry notes above, most economists view deficit spending to fight a recession/depression as justified.

      The same economist who believe prosperity comes through jump starting bubbles with public monies in specific sectors, and then once those bubbles burst jump starting bubbles in other sectors?

      Why would an educated mind believe that is anything but madness?

      The same economist who did not see that public sector manipulations of the market would get out of hand and cascade as it did?

      Why would an educated mind have anything but contempt for their shortsightedness?

      The same economist who blame those who bet against the debt machine for a crises instead of the debt machine itself?

      Why would an educated human being take any of them seriously? That ignorant narrative continues unabated. If you want a good laugh (you may not get the joke if you do not understand the absurdity of post hoc thinking) listen to what Merkel and Sarkozy had to say about the Greek debt crises. Blaming speculators!

      Sarkozy: The euro is an essential element of Europe. We can not leave it to speculators . . . We will not let others undo what generations have created

      The man could patent stupid and he is a progressive in good standing. To be honest, you are all stupid.

      You save your harvest in the good times to fight famine in the bad times.

      Analogy is back ass-wards. You should be even more a penny pincher in bad times because your resources are confined, monetizing debt obscures that fact like adding mud to your grain paddies obscures the fact you are starving to death.

      1. monetizing debt obscures that fact like adding mud to your grain paddies obscures the fact you are starving to death.

        Win.

        1. Ok. You have convinced me of Krugman’s error. In a recession, we should cut public spending. And while we’re at it, let’s raise interest rates.

          1. Would you lend me money if I promised to pay back less money in actual cash in the case of negative interest rates which Keynesians absurdly but seriously propose*, or in lesser value in the case of monetized debt? See. Think about it. Everything you think you know about macro is wrong.

            *Harvard University economist Greg Mankiw:

            If r is the real interest rate, then the relative price of consumption tomorrow in terms of consumption today is 1/(1+r). Is there anything in economic theory that requires this relative price to be less than one? Unless consumption goods are costlessly storable, which they aren’t, I do not think so. Just as the price of apples can be more or less than the price of pears, the price of consumption tomorrow can be more or less than the price of consumption today. If people are eager to defer consumption, then consumption tomorrow could well be more expensive than consumption today ? that is, the equilibrium real interest rate could be negative.

            1. You know, she was asking me, fella. But I’m really too sleepy for this sort of thing, so thanks anyway.

            2. You should try loosening up a bit. That guy who did the free market salad really was funny in a goofy sort of way.

  28. WASHINGTON ? It was a two-day trip to the Midwest to talk about jobs and clean energy. President Barack Obama didn’t mention the drama unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, where oil was gushing from a broken well pipe a mile beneath the sea.

    The situation hadn’t become a priority. Soon it would.

    On the return to Washington aboard Air Force One, Obama learned the spill had become more worrisome. A third break was discovered at the destroyed well pipe on the ocean floor 40 miles from Louisiana’s precious coastal marshes. Federal scientists believed at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day were being released ? five times more than original estimates.

    And there was no way to stop the flow.

    The Gulf region, ravaged five years earlier by Hurricane Katrina, was on the verge of a second ecological disaster. Would there be a repeat of the bureaucratic bungling that marked President George W. Bush’s response to the hurricane?

    While the Obama administration has faced second-guessing about the speed and effectiveness of some of its actions, a narrative pieced together by The Associated Press, based on documents, interviews and public statements, shows little resemblance to Katrina in either the characterization of the threat or the federal government’s response.

    AP

    Could the AP have their collectiv(ist) lips any more firmly attached to the Presidential Rectum?

  29. Staten Island ferry slams into dock; dozens hurt

    Maybe would should have private industry regulate government operations. They could issue regulations (reduce speed when approching dock), perform inspections (captains shouldn’t take drugs that cause drowsiness before operating) and levy fines.

    They might even debunk bullshit government claims in court that a captain falling asleep at the wheel is an act of God.

    1. You normally have to go a little further uptown to the Village to be rammed hard by a….

      … oh, ferry. nevermind.

      1. In the Top 10 funniest comments here, easily!

  30. MNG|5.7.10 @ 11:12PM|#
    “real free market economics” hasn’t been given a fair chance!”

    Wrong.
    Free markets exist in spite of dip-shits like you. How do you think Cubans keep from starving?
    The difference is that dip-shits like you raise the costs through your dip-shit distortions.
    Oh, and then claim to be ‘serving the people!’

    1. But… but… it’s the U.S. embargo of Cuba, that starves the Cuban citizenry!

      /snark

      1. You’ll love this:
        “It’s getting harder to put meat on the table in Venezuela….Chavez’s socialist government has imposed price controls on many basic foods to combat “savage capitalism” and it blames shortages on growing demand due to rising incomes of the poor.”
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..143D45.DTL

        See, it’s the poor trying to buy stuff that just screws everything up…

  31. Interesting. But the only bias I see is the author’s. This sounds like a hatchet job on Krugman.The other economists are included as padding.

    1. Cavanaugh bases the article on one study by a economics student at George Mason.

    2. In his NY Times interview, Krugman identified himself apolitcal and at most, conservative and Republican leaning until 2000 when he saw what the Bushies were doing.

    “Krugman’s main concern seemed to be winning elections and he feared that Obama’s “centrist” tendencies would impede such an agenda by giving in to deficit reduction…” Cavanaugh pulled that out of a lower body cavity.

    The undergrad student’s study he cites doesn’t prove its conclusion: “Thus, he (Krugman) worried about the deficit as a structural issue in 2003 but not in 2009. The contrast between structural and cyclical deficits provides a potentially
    valid reason for changing one’s tune on the deficit. However, Krugman’s tune change in “Democrats and the Deficit,” noted above, was not of this nature. It was of a purely partisan nature and occurred in the absence of any emergency in the economy. To my knowledge Krugman has not addressed his overt partisanship. Until
    he does so, it is difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt. Krugman has changed his tune in a significant way regarding the budget deficit when the White House has changed party”.

    3. Reason Magazine is a right wing libertarian rag.

    4. I tend to agree with deficit spending as a way out of a recession if its deliberate policy and is part of a larger strategy. The alternative is a Hoover like neglect that can allow the bottom to deepen and broaden as it did in the Depression. Clinton made it work in the 90’s and ended up with a surplus in the budget.

    To conclude that Krugman’s converted to partisan booster is a real leap and unsupported by the “evidence” proffered.

    1. 1. Well this post is ABOUT Krugman, not about the study. So calling it a hatchet job (in disguise) when it is clearly all about Krugman is sort of missing the point.

      2. Yeah, the evidence is in the rest of the study. The quotes and all that good stuff…

      3. Right wing? I really don’t understand why you would think this magazine is leaning to the right. The most popular candidate in the 2008 elections among the Reason writers was Obama. Not to mention all those policy changes that are advocated by both libertarians and the left. I’d like to hear a defense of this…

      4. Yes, Clinton ended with a surplus… That’s sort of the point, you have to pay back your debts after a spending spree, not just take on more and more debt…

      5. Again, it is clearly supported by the evidence, even just the evidence cited in this post.

    2. 4. I tend to agree with deficit spending as a way out of a recession if its deliberate policy and is part of a larger strategy. The alternative is a Hoover like neglect that can allow the bottom to deepen and broaden as it did in the Depression. Clinton made it work in the 90’s and ended up with a surplus in the budget.

      All kinds of ignorance thrown out in that sentence. There was no ‘Hoover like neglect’ in the 30’s and there was nothing laissez faire about the man’s philosphy or policies. FDR only extended what Hoover already put into practice.

      There was a Harding like neglect in 1921, but learning about that before you are ready for the truth will blow your pretty little mind.

      Clinton made it work in the 90’s and ended up with a surplus in the budget.

      Clinton made what work in the 90’s? He was handed the best set of cards in human history with the peace dividend and the internet boom. What he did right was not interfere in the economic developments of that time. The idea that any of you to the left of him would have left the internet, the markets, and banking practices develop with out a tight authoritarian hand to squeeze the life out of those areas is absurd.

      If anything, Clinton made you fools look much more socially acceptable than you ever deserved.

      1. BTW, the “surplus” was current-accounts only. Sorta like you have money left over this month, since you put everything on the Master Card and that bill isn’t due until next month.

      2. What he did right was not interfere in the economic developments of that time.

        He sure as hell tried to. Luckily for his reputation, there was a Republican congress to thwart his plans.

        -jcr

    3. Terence|5.8.10 @ 2:34PM|#
      “3. Reason Magazine is a right wing libertarian rag.”

      And Terence is a brain-dead lefty scum. So?

    4. Sorry, Hoover was actually an interventionist. There was no “neglect”. His interventions were miserable failures, just as FDR’s were.

      That’s right, I said failures. FDR did not save us from the Great Depression.

      1. I’m … I’m convinced!

        1. Sorry Jaime,
          Even though I tried my best to sway the judges with my swoons, twirls, and hand jive, the best I’ve ever performed was at a lousy .8 even when the rest of the field was tanking. Make that especially when the rest of the field was tanking.
          I’m just not a high level performer and never will be, no matter if the cheerleaders like me the most. Make that especially when the cheerleaders like me the most.

    5. Krugman’s quote in this post nicely sums up Keynsian economic theory: try to run surpluses in boom years, and then run large deficits during recessions to produce counter-cyclical demand.

      The author responds basically by saying that Keynsian economics is stupid and wrong. He’s entitled to his theory.

      However, notice that at this very moment 16 European Nations are getting together to provide a huge loan package to stabilize the markets and allow to the Club Med countries to maintain their markets. Early word is that they are going to throw 800 billion at the problem, unless the deal collapses at the last minute.

      The reason they are doing this, even though they very much don’t want to, is because they don’t want the stock markets to crash 5% or so Monday morning.

      Face it, the people who run the world are Keynsians, although the president of the European Central Bank may be an exception.

      1. However, notice that at this very moment 16 European Nations are getting together to provide a huge loan package to stabilize the markets and allow to the Club Med countries to maintain their markets. Early word is that they are going to throw 800 billion at the problem, unless the deal collapses at the last minute.

        The reason they are doing this, even though they very much don’t want to, is because they don’t want the stock markets to crash 5% or so Monday morning.

        Nicolas Sarkozy: Man of Gravitas! ROTFLOL!

        Face it, the people who run the world are Keynsians

        Yet, you are trying to lay the Greek debt crises in the lap of some one else?

  32. MNG|5.8.10 @ 7:57AM|#
    “Hong Kong is a city.”
    Uh, do cities issue their own currency? Sorry, MNG, you’re lowering the bar again.

    “If we want to cite Hong Kong’s success under market policies I can cite NYC’s economiic dynamo under comparitively heavy regulation/intervention.”
    Let’s see it, jackass. Here’s Hong Kong:
    “in 1960, the earliest date for which I have been able to get them, the average per capita income in Hong Kong was 28 percent of that in Great Britain; by 1996, it had risen to 137 percent of that in Britain. In short, from 1960 to 1996, Hong Kong’s per capita income rose from about one-quarter of Britain’s to more than a third larger than Britain’s.”
    http://www.hoover.org/publicat…..32186.html

    1. Ithaca, NY issues their own currency.

      1. Don’t let the Secret Service know about this…

    2. Stalt spleading the news
      I’m reaving today
      I want to be a palt of it
      Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

      Hey, notice Hong Kong is listed here as a city (what did you think it was lil Ronnie, a nation?)? And notice how the GDP per capita of NYC dwarfs Hong Kong’s? [yawns] Goofballs like lil’ Ronnie are too easy, where’s the A team when you need them?

      1. Will the wind ever remember
        The names it has blown in the past
        And with his crutch, it’s old age, and it’s wisdom
        It whispers no, this will be the last
        And the wind cries Mary

      2. So if GDP is the gold standard to measure nations by, then explain why the oft praised nations of Sweden, Norway, Denmark fair so poorly? Could it be that GDP is a unit that means whatever value the user projects into it?

        1. Are you daft? Norway has a higher GDP per capita than we do.

          https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

          1. Norway also has about $15,000 / $20,000 a year is GDP that comes from oil and natural gas. Subtract that out, and Norway’s GDP looks far less impressive.

        2. I guess I can see why Misesian market fundamentalists would not like the GDP as it involves an attempt to find the value of products in an “objective” manner, and as I understand it a central tenent of theirs is that value is some mysterious unknown thing that only each person knows for himself and noone else can possibly approximate. This why when you buy a present for a loved one you just walk in a store, close your eyes, point and buy whatever you happened to be pointing at.

          1. That’s a dumb example. The fact that companies can predict what people might want has nothing to do with predicting how much an individual values that product.

            1. You misunderstand the example. When you buy a gift for a loved one you approximate what that loved one values. And, unless you are the kind of person who buys your wife a bowling ball, most people do pretty well at guessing what the other person values.

  33. The difference is people like Krugman think Democrats only spend money on good things like black people, poor people, hispanic people, so thats good deficit spending. But Republicans only spend money on fat rich white guys who speak in tongues. That is bad spending.

  34. Wow that dude seems WAY cool to me dude.

    Lou
    http://www.cops-r-watching.es.tc

  35. Krugman’s comments are more voluminous than anybody else’s.

    It’s because he’s got an entire Radio Network dedicated to his opinions.

  36. Check out my tumblr blog Chicks In Their Underwear

    Reposting stuff you probably haven’t seen before.

    OT: Sure would be nice if Krugman used his NYT’s column to talk about economics. Just goes to show ya how shallow-thinking their preferred readership is that he can coast with the partisan political shit he writes.

  37. ——-http://www.dearsales.com———-

    wholesale

    NIKE sports shoes($35-);

    star basketball shoes($34-);

    NHL NFL NBA MLB jerseys($32-)

    (free shipping & paypal accept)

    ——http://www.dearsales.com

  38. Short version: Paul Krugman is a Keynsian economist, like most economists. Keynsians believe deficits are bad in good times but good in bad times. Reason magazine bloggers think that deficits are bad all the time.
    Therefore Krugman is some sort of liar, or shill, because he’s constantly changing his mind about deficits, depending on whether there is a recession or not, not withstanding that Keynsian economics specifically arose out of study of the Great Depression, and how to prevent another one.

  39. BTW, this article described is written by Brett Bartley, who is working on his B.S in economics.

    Seriously, he hasn’t even graduated from college yet. In his picture he looks 21 years old. For an undergrad paper it’s a very ambitious and impressive effort, but… you should probably get a second opinion when it comes to picking apart the work of a Nobel Prize winning economist.

    One example is that in the paper he cites Krugman as being inconsistant about the deficit in taking a more severe view of deficits in 2003-2004 than in 1991-1992, even though the deficit as a proportion of the GDP is higher in 1991-1992.

    Bartley doesn’t seem to notice than 1991-1992 were recession years(improving towards the end), and countercyclical spending is textbook Keynesian economics.

    1. Bartley doesn’t seem to notice than 1991-1992 were recession years(improving towards the end), and countercyclical spending is textbook Keynesian economics.

      Hate to be a pendant love, but it is important to get those years right, as one set tells a different story than the other set:

      Early 1990s recession – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      The recession of the early nineteen-nineties was an economic recession that hit much of the world in 1990-91….
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession

      1. Touche. Of course, government revenue tends to suffer a year or so even after a recession is over, since usually revenue is based on earning over the previous year. In our times, states and municipalities have been devastated by collapsing property values, while for most of the 00s states were living fat off the land due to the housing bubble.

        This argument really doesn’t matter much in the policy world. The EU was firmly decided for years that big deficits are bad and shouldn’t be allowed, and pretty much stuck to this principle until today, when collapsing stock and bond markets enduced them to do a complete 180 and inject a trillion dollars in loan guarantees along with significant quantitative easing by the European Central Bank (buying up EU bonds).

        This is all to allow Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc., to continue spending at a deficit while still borrowing money at cheap rates, with the EU as a whole assuming the risk. This is exactly what they said they wouldn’t do, but they did it anyway.

        They didn’t have any other choice.

  40. To call Krugman an economist is like calling Al Gore a climatologist. Both are full of…..

    It is a sad comment on both the NY Times and academia that Krugman is where he is today. Purveyor of snake oil, the variety that got us into this mess.

  41. The problem with having economic advisors is that they are to easily politicized.
    -The real role of an economist should be to point out what he or she thinks will happen in a given situation, ant the role of the politicians should be to hear the views of many economists, hear the views of the people, and then try to act as a servant of the public and figure out what should be done, and then try to convince this solution to the public, that in turn decide which politicians to elect as their representatives.
    -But now what happens is that politicians have their own agenda, and they find economists to back their claims and views, and politicize them, and gets the economist or team of economists to pronounce their opinion not based on science and study, but on party affiliation. You actually get democrat (agenda) economists, and republican (agenda economists where they should be party neutral.
    -> The result here is that the nations “top economists” (both democrat economists and republican economists) end up being the economists that are the easiest corruptible, most easy to influence, and the economically dumbest economist that are available. That is why some of these “top economists” now sound like politicians when they talk. And meanwhile the real objective, reflected and party neutral economists, that do not claim to hold all the answers, get pushed out in the dark because of their “radical” (non-partizan) ideas.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.