Paul Krugman Now Laughingstock On Two Continents


Drink yourself sober.

It's always the right time to ignore Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, Nobel Laureate and four-time Latin Grammy nominee whose drink-yourself-sober advice on handling the debt crisis is so sharply at odds with reality.

Of late, Krugman has had his Irish up at Europeans who are resisting the Obama Administration's plan to continue spending hundreds of billions on financial stimulus. (Not that he agrees with the administration, which Krugman has been arguing for the last 18 months should be spending trillions, not mere billions, on stimulus.) And in the case of Bundesbank president Axel Weber—whom Krugman called out recently in the daily Handelsblatt for trying to shore up the falling euro at the expense of government job creation—it's created a backlash. The Wall Street Journal reports that Krugman's criticism has turned him into the anti-Hasselhoff and boosted Weber's popularity as he pursues the top job at the European Central Bank:

Wolfgang Franz, who heads the German government's economic advisory panel known as the Wise Men, tore into Krugman — and the US — in an op-ed in the German business daily Wednesday, titled "How about some facts, Mr. Krugman?"

"Where did the financial crisis begin? Which central bank conducted monetary policy that was too loose? Which country went down the wrong path of social policy by encouraging low income households to take on mortgage loans that they can never pay back? Who in the year 2000 weakened regulations limiting investment bank leverage ratios, let Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008 and thereby tipped world financial markets into chaos?" he wrote.

Unfortunately, as Krugman notes in his response, Franz managed to find the weakest arguments against the Times' fiscal shaman. Europeans have lost their appetite for digging deeper holes of debt for the same reason Americans have: because they don't have a choice. As Margaret Thatcher predicted would happen, we have all run out of other people's money. That reality explains a lot more than airy references to Germans' anti-inflationary mass psychology.

We're at the tail end of the largest economic intervention since World War II, and even on its own narrow, nebulous terms, it has been a colossal failure. The failure is obvious to working people. It's obvious to unemployed people. It's obvious to kindergarteners, to dogs and cats. Only Paul Krugman persists in thinking good things will happen if we just throw more money on the barbecue.

NEXT: Nothin' Shakin' on Shakedown Street

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s a failure because the world’s not perfect yet? Must be nice not having a non-stimulus world to compare to. It will always be shitty somewhere, so you’re never wrong.

    1. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion hasn’t given you the clairvoyance to find the location of the rebel base nor has it helped you conjure up the stolen battle plans.

      Fear of THIS battle station will keep the local systems in line!

      Jane, you ignorant slut.

    2. Krugman, really?

      Jeebus Tony, have some goddamn standards, man.

      At least find an attractive Keynesian to get all wet over.

      Or, is it Paul’s brilliant mind that makes you all hot?

      1. it could be worse. He could get is panties in a knot over friedman.

        1. Careful now. Unabashed monetarism may not be the complete answer, but Cato does not give the Milton Friedman Prize for Promoting Liberty for nothing. He was one of the most engaging, agile, an ultimately convincing defenders free markets had in the last century. I often think it would be harder for the Krugmans of the world to get away with their intellectual dishonesty if Milton Friedman were still with us and was even half the arguer he was 30 years ago.

          Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.


          1. umm…I think he meant Tom Friedman, another NY Times columnist.

    3. Reposting my FB status update from two days ago:

      Paul Krugman is the number one enemy of Environmentalism. Until his ideas are looked upon with derision, we cannot have a sustainable monetary supply. Until we have a sustainable monetary supply, we cannot have sustainable consumption. Until we have sustainable consumption, we cannot have a healthy planet.

    4. Must be nice not having a non-stimulus world to compare to.

      But we do have it, Tony, we do. It’s that unspeakable alt.universe President Obama’s economic brain trust warned us about a year and a half ago: the one where unemployment might reach as high as 8 percent, and Spock has a beard.

      1. I think it’s time to face the fact that we live in the universe that spawns the Terran Empire, not the Federation.

        1. As long as I get to have that hot babe and the death ray, I’m good with that.

          1. Understood, but I think that’s like two hundred years off.

            1. Didn’t evil Kirk find it as an artifact on some planet? I just need to get there first. And I think if I have a death ray, I can get a different hot babe. (besides, she’s like 60-70 now)

              1. And they outfits are so much better in the evil universe. I mean, who the fuck wants to live in a future that thinks apple-green velour is a good thing?

                1. I think the Oakland A’s flirted with this look. They had a pretty good run!

              2. Maybe you could find the Enemy Zapper, but the woman hasn’t been born yet.

                1. Amazingly, Grace Whitney was 36 when she appeared as Ensign Rand. I would not have guessed that, even with the soft lighting.

                  1. I think that’s the thing that I hate most about liberals: they killed the space program. And I don’t mean just obunglers most recent pronouncement, I mean the bullshit that NASA has been doing for the last 30 years. If Boeing had been running the space program we’d be on Mars now. Hell if we’d spent $787 BILLION on the space program we’d have Starships. Instead we have fully funded union pension funds. I’m surprised that a lot of liberals haven’t gotten pissed off at obungler because of this. I believe in the old Star-Trek philosophy: fly around the galaxy kicking butt, but there are plenty of liberals who love the next-generation philosophy: be friends with the klingons and the romulans and don’t interfere. Those people are the ones with “obama” stickers on the bumpers of their prius’s and they must be having a real crisis of confidence now. No more obungler: We need fewer Jean-Luc Picards and more evil Kirks. Bring on the Terran Empire!

    5. But that same fact doesn’t stop you from declaring victory.

      1. I was replying to tony.

    6. No, it’s not perfect long after we were told it would be, with unemployment figures and the like doing the 180 degree opposite of what Obama said they would do, sans the American Structured Securities Rescue Act for a Prudent Economy.

      But people keep saying we’re in a recovery… eventually, even the Bluest of the Blue states won’t be buying it.

      But Linville now thinks there’s a chance to reform state government. It’s finally sunk in, she said, that the Legislature can’t simply patch up the budget and hope the economy will get better. “What’s different,” she said, “is it’s not getting any better.”

      1. sans the American Structured Securities Rescue Act for a Prudent Economy.

        You, sir, win one Internets.

      2. long after we were told it would be

        When was this, exactly?

        We’re talking about a depression, which could last many years, vs. the sort of stagnation we’re in now. Everyone predicted the former would happen without Keynesian spending. So it stands to reason not that the cure was a failure, but that we haven’t finished dosing yet.

        1. Everyone predicted the former would happen without Keynesian spending.

          Not everyone. Peter Schiff said “the recession should be embraced”, before it was a depression.

          The “cure” is more of the same that caused the mess, only on steroids. Expansion of credit, and expansion of money, are basically the same thing.

        2. Same old shit. Things are bad now, but think how bad they would have been if we hadn’t done what we did?

          Why don’t liberals try, just once, keeping their fucking hands off the problem and let it sort itself out. But then they wouldn’t be able to tell us what to do and how great their ideas are.

          1. Because most people thought it would take many years for it to “sort itself out.” Do you know what a depressed economy is?

            1. We’ll learn what it is if we continue to spend unsustainably!

              If only we did what we did for the Great Depression that started in 1921…oops, there was no Great Depression of 1921. We did nothing to fix *that*. We tried to fix the Great Depression of 1929, and look what that gave us!

        3. As I recall, with Keynesian spending, we would not pass 8% unemployment.

          We passed 10% with it, and that’s even using the bullshit numbers that don’t take into account people who have said “screw it” and given up.

          Besides, it wasn’t “stimulus” anyway. It was triage for obese state governments having just suffered heart attacks (maybe should suck on that teat quite so hard).

          Time to get them on the treadmill and remove the supports.

        4. Start with the Obama Admin, Tony:


        5. And yet, further down-thread don’t you claim that the stimulus kept us OUT of a depression? So which is it?

      3. eventually, even the Bluest of the Blue states won’t be buying it.

        Washington state isn’t even close to being the bluest of blue states, unless everything south of Puyallap, North of Everett, and east of the Cascades seceded while I wasn’t looking.

        Hawaii gets the dubious honor of being the bluest of blue states — went 3-1 for Obama, 90% Democrats in the legislature, and averages 95%+ Democratic in its Congressional delegation since statehood.

    7. The world sure as fuck won’t be perfect by government edict, Tony.

    8. Actually we do have a NON-Stimulus world example.
      Check out your history “The Forgotten Depression”
      A truly conservative President can end a depression in 18 months. How long was the “Great Depression” and our “Great Recession” with government spending and bailouts.

      Here’s another reference:

  2. I dunno, my cat’s pretty stupid.

    1. I’m still smarter than Tony

      1. I like how Tony and his ilk can say with 100% certainty that we’d be DOOM’D in a depression if Obama hadn’t spent untold billions of dollars on the various bailouts. Reverse Nostradamusism, yo.

        1. Actually, it wasn’t just Obama. It was Bush, Obama, and both houses of your favorite elected officials.

          I like how you and your ilk conveniently forget with 100% certainty that “stimulus” was one of the very few things in recent memory that gained widespread bipartisan consensus.

          We get that you don’t like Obama, yo.

          1. Actually, you could not be anymore wrong. The Stimulus passed with partisan support only.

            The vote was 244 to 188, with no Republican support and 11 Democrats voting no.

            1. ReminderGuy is clearly confusing the stimulus package with TARP, which unfortunately did pass with partisan support, but only because it was in the thick of the ’08 campaign. Leave it to the libs to have their facts completely wrong – why else would they be libs?

    2. Remember:

      Pull the cat’s teeth out before covering genitalia with gravy.

  3. The Germans still remember the Wiemar hyperinflation, so they do have some understanding that governments cannot spend forever.

    Obama and Krugman seem intent on driving the US dollar to parity with the Zimbabwean dollar.

    1. “Weimar”

      proofread before submit.


      1. Remember the rule: I before E except before Hitler.

        1. Sudden WINS!!!

          1. God I almost choked on my drink, but it was worth it!

    2. Only the really old ones.

      1. It is pretty fixed in their political discussion.

        Kinda like Americans discussing Civil War issues.

        (Side note: I have a 10,000 Mark banknote from 1922 – which was the early phase of the hyperinflation.)

        1. I’m willing to bet that unlike most money, that 10,000 Mark note went UP in value over time.

        2. I think the highest I have is 500 million marks. And it’s cheap-looking and only printed on one side.

  4. This Keynesian rubbish is old Alfred E.’s religion, and to any religious fanatic, people who won’t adhere to the doctrine are apostates. You can no more convince him that his silly, outdated ideas don’t work than you can convince a diehard Christian fundamentalist that Jesus isn’t coming back.

    I admit to having a mix of schadenfreude and pity for the poor guy. When someone thinks he’s as smart and important as he does, it’s not easy to have the entire world so publicly laugh at you and dismiss you.

    1. I assume you mean Alfred E. Neuman.

    2. Maybe because Keynesian economics is wrong and Christianity is at least plausible?

      What’s the point of taking a cheap shot at Christians with zero to back it up, Mike?

  5. Herr Krugman! Du bist ein grosser scheisskopf! Haha!

    1. JA,WOHL!!!!!

      But I think it is eine grosse scheisskopf

      Whatever language, he’s still a shithead

      1. OH..shithead!!…heh.heh.heh…I get it….heh…heh..heh

  6. Paul Krugman Now Laughingstock On Two Continents

    Only two?

    1. The Asians are too polite to laugh openly.

      1. No, they are too inscrutable. 😉

      2. actually there is a video of Soros speaking to an audience in China where he states ‘markets can’t correct themselves’, and he is met with derisive laughter from that audience.

        1. please post the link to that

        2. i thought that was Tim Geithner. could you provide a link to that video please?


            Found a copy. This one is edited a bit differently, but you can still here them laughing at him.

            1. ‘hear’ not ‘here’, of course.

      3. The Japanese, at least, think he’s a POS who gives unsolicited advice of the sort that’s fucked over their economy for 20 years. For a recap:

    2. He is a Laughingstock where I live also.

    3. I thought the exact same thing.I still cannot believe rational thinking people listen to this joker.I suppose when you write fiction as truth,some folks just read it for the laughs.

    1. That poor cat! I’m calling the ASPCA on Krugman.

      1. The phrase about the look on a guy’s face after he gets caught fucking the neighbor’s cat, leaves out the look on the cat’s face.

        Also, gotta watch out for those claws. I’m sure Warty can attest.

    2. Another fucking trillion or the cat gets it!

    3. I knew that fucker was a Bond villain!

  7. The Messiah (may syphilis blind him) should be using some of the stimulus money to bribe a Chinese bankruptcy judge

  8. Krugabe won’t be satisfied until he has stuffed your wallet with $500.- bills.

    1. Dude, I think you left off some zeroes. The Krugster thinks much bigger than you give him credit for.

  9. Must be nice not having a non-stimulus world to compare to.

    Nice for you, that is.

    1. Note how the Armchair Predictors of Future Passed can say “Lord’a mercy, we’d all be DAID in th’ streets if not for Shurf Obama ridin’ inta town, slingin’ his six-guns of fiscal respons… uh… re-spon… justice!”

    2. It’s especially delicious coming from an ardent global warming believer. “Experimental control??? We don’t need no stinking experimental control!”

  10. His dream will prove you an ass.

    1. So who is this other person who’s read Mother Night? Great book, it’s just in that second tier of Vonnegut as far as copies/sales I imagine. Unless this quote is actually from Slaughterhouse-Five

      1. Mother Night blew my mind back in the day, but I couldn’t quote it to save my life.

  11. The failure is obvious to working people. It’s obvious to unemployed people. It’s obvious to kindergarteners, to dogs and cats.

    To lumps of clay, actors, retards…to Congressmen!

  12. Krugman motto:
    Credo quia absurdum est
    ‘I belive it because it is absurd’

  13. I think what really pisses me off with Krugman and his ilk is that, when they do get hyperinflation, they will point to some parenthetical remark that they made and claim that they tried to warn us about the consequences of running the printing presses too fast.

    1. It’s one of the most frustrating features of the modern age. We have the ability to call out people on their past evil, stupid, ridiculous, and/or absurd statements or acts, but we just let it go. So many people in public life should be laughed off the stage for things they’ve said, but we just pretend that it never happened.

      1. Exactly. All the ‘I’s added up don’t make we, but to many ‘I’s share a benevolent aptitude to forgiveness and instead acquiesce to name recognition.

        How else does one explain that Donny Osmond still has celebrity status?

        1. Well, he does have that Technicolor Dreamcoat.

          1. It does say a lot that he had to do ‘that’ while others got away with guest appearances on ‘Love Boat’ and ‘Fantasy Island’. Alas! Faust wasn’t alone.

            1. Really, revenge has been taken in full measure with Donny.

      2. The most appropriate example I have for finance would be this timeline of what Bernanke and Paulson said about the financial crisis juxtaposed with the level of the Dow:


        The Feb 28, 08 comment from Paulson is an insta-classic: “I’m seeing a series of ideas suggested involving major government intervention in the housing market, and these things are usually presented or sold as a way of helping homeowners stay in their homes. Then when you look at them more carefully what they really amount to is a bailout for financial institutions or Wall Street.”

    2. I can’t wait to see what they do blame it on. Let’s see, what could it be?

      Could it be: SATAN?

      No, they’ll probably pull out the old chestnuts: deregulation, lassez-faire capitalism, free markets, libertarianism (it’s everywhere!!), etc.

      Actually, I don’t expect hyperinflation, just 5-10% with the current definition. (It would be higher if they still used the ones from the Carter years. see John Williams webpage although he is a bit extreme in some of his predictions I believe his stats on inflation definition are correct)

    3. Krugman is essentially agitating for a new Silverite movement.

    4. I was reading another blog, and you have Krugman supports say things like:
      “krugman was for nationalizing the banks. He denies he was for nationalizing the banks..”

      Krugman is not a two handed (on the one hand, on the other hand) economist, but an eight limbed octopus. He writes a simple equation to give an aura of science to his pronouncements, but when they don’t work he comes out with all sorts of extraneous reasons (Well, than it not science and clear cut if you don’t really account for ALL the variables).
      I am reminded of what Feynmann said about string theory: Its worse than wrong.

    5. No, they’ll blame speculators, Republican obstructionism, the laissez-faire policies of George W Bush, Reagan-era deregulation, and lack of a single-payer health system.

    1. Good for you Warty, nice going.

    2. SF uses blogspot.

      That’s the blogging equivalent of hotmail.

  14. krugman drinking a guinness is disgusting. find another pic!

    it’s too bad that working for “nyt” gives you clout.

    1. Good lord how would you like to see that across the table during a speed date!

    2. Even with a buzz, he is wild-eyed.

  15. The Krugape. Sounds almost like Agape. Yikes!

    Honestly, it surely belongs to a different Genus. I suggest a name like Krugapornis mongoliaclusterfukensis.

  16. speaking of laughing stocks… reason’s own David Weigel:

    “It’s all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn’t get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV.”

  17. speaking of laughing stocks… reason’s own David Weigel:

    “It’s all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn’t get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV.”

  18. Of course you all have to know intuitively that Keynesianism is a giant failure. It can’t be acknowledged if you’re to continue peddling your bullshit snake oil.

    Keynesian activity has been implemented the world over, in this country by Democrats AND Republicans, and it’s not because it’s a failure, it’s because it was the only theory left standing once your laissez-faire nonsense had crashed everything to hell.

    But all that’s changed. The pants-shitting emergency is over, so Republicans and libertarians look around–all the while constantly battling more Keynesian spending–see an economy that’s not in great shape, and act like the most disingenuous bastards you can imagine and declare it a failure.

    1. The pants-shitting emergency is over,

      No, we’ve extended it for decades to come– and left alive the possibility that we’ll have many more, thanks to the Party of Corporate Welfare and too-big-to-fail.

      1. Yes, we’re extending it. Meanwhile the Republican minority in the Senate just vetoed an unemployment extension, but don’t you fucking dare touch their precious tax cuts for the rich. They are extending it and they are doing it on purpose because they want the economy to fail so they can get power back.

        Now the interesting question is what’s your excuse? You’re both selling the same bullshit. They’re doing it because they are corporate whores. You’re just a true believer in what is nothing but corporate welfare snake oil. Democrats aren’t pure by any means. Corporate whoredom is the problem. And you believe in the bullshit philosophy that perpetuates it.

        1. but don’t you fucking dare touch their precious tax cuts for the rich

          Yo, stupid fuck. Yeah you Tony.

          Steny Hoyer let the cat out of the bag. It ain’t just the rich that are going to have to pay, and soon.

          1. Raising taxes on people making more than, say, fifty grand a year is the ONLY way to solve our problems.

            1. Hahahahaha, no.

            2. Yeah, the problem with our economy right now is that small businesses make too much profit, and consumers have too much money to spend. We need to choke off the American individual income, STAT!

            3. It doesn’t even OCCUR to Tony that there’s another, equally obvious way to solve our problems. Cut entitlement programs. Wean the people gradually off the public teat. . .before it’s too late.

              Instead, we seem to be presenting the people with ever-larger teats to suckle off of. Guess who ALREADY pays for that? Folks making over 50k per year.

              Reduce or remove the unconscionable tax burden on that segment of the population which actually, you know, CREATES the jobs. . .and watch job creation flourish. It’s common sense.

        2. Tony, fuck off. You’re arguing for fiscal prudence regarding taxation while your dogma rails against raising taxes in the middle of a recession. Budget deficits and unemployment extensions are of the same ilk — maximizing c + i + g — not contradictory concepts.

    2. Greenspan said the exact same shit when he propped up the housing and credit bubbles. Look where that got us. You religious fanatics are hilarious. Since you’re either too stupid or too blind to believe your own eyes, why don’t you ask Japan where Keynesian idiocy got them?

    3. And of course, Keynesian clowns were completely blindsided when the bubbles burst, meanwhile Austrians had been warning of it for years.

      1. I’m too lazy to confirm this little talking point, but let’s say it’s true. Austrians are always predicting disaster. That’s what you do when you’re a discredited, fringe ideology.

        But don’t Austrians reject the idea of economic forecasting? Yeah I’m calling bullshit.

        1. Like I said: religious fanatic.

          1. Eat my nuts.

            “That’s why it’s so ominous to see signs that America’s housing market, like the stock market at the end of the last decade, is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble.”

            Paul Krugman, 2005.

            1. He predicted the end of a bubble?

              Why, he’s a fucking GENIUS.

              1. Spending lots of money that doesn’t really exist was the only way to save us from certain, 100% unavoidable economic collapse.

                Krugman said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

            2. And in 2001, he was recommending a bubble.

            3. Lots of other financial analysts predicted this as well, without also suggesting we should cripple our economic future by piling more and more debt on an already overburdened table.

    4. laissez-faire nonsense had crashed everything to hell.

      Been awhile since I have heard this one, I think you need a new and updated Guide to Left Wing Nutjob Talking Points?.

      The whole laissez-faire thing is so passe.

    5. We’ve “all been Keynesians” for 39 years straight, except maybe for that little stint with Volker from 79-82, and look where it has got us. How can anyone in their right mind defend it. Perpetual creeping inflation is responsible for most of the redistribution of wealth from the middle class and poor to the wealthy.

    6. “Keynesian activity has been implemented the world over, in this country by Democrats AND Republicans, and it’s not because it’s a failure, it’s because it was the only theory left standing once your laissez-faire nonsense had crashed everything to hell.”
      i assume you are talking about the great depression. can you please learn something about the business cycle before you open your fucking mouth?

    7. It takes a special kind of dishonest asswipe or complete fucking retard to characterize U.S. economic policy prior to 2008 as anything even approximating laissez-faire.

      1. It’s easy if you haven’t learned that words have meanings.

    8. it’s because it was the only theory left standing once your laissez-faire nonsense had crashed everything to hell.

      Because it was those nasty Austrians who implemented the Fed’s massive easing following the tech crash; the Austrians who set up that FRB in the first place, along with FNMA, FRE and the FHLBs to pour money into the mortgage sector; they who provide massive subsidies to homeowners; libertarians who granted banks an implicit government put (cf. Greenspan put). The private sector has a fairly obvious role here, but you have to be really, really stupid to think the government should get off the hook, and borderline retarded to believe it was due to laissez-faire policies.

    9. When, exactly, did “laisseiz-faire nonsense” crash everything to hell? It would have had to have been before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

  19. Does… does Krugman have a sweater tied around his neck in that picture… I knew it.

    1. I’d like to think I had something to do with that.

  20. Paul Krugman is a complete and utter muppet.

  21. LOL, that dude does indeed have some serious issues LOL


  22. Krugman has turned Keynesianism into the ultimate non-falsifiable hypothesis: if you try it and it fails, it’s because you just didn’t administer enough hair of the dog that bit you.

    Even if one was persuaded that deficit stimulus spending in the appropriate areas could assist recovery from a burst credit bubble, it should be obvious by this point that our particular government is only going to direct the funding to such crony programs as homebuyer tax credits and cash for clunkers, and otherwise further raid the seedcorn with every goddamn chance we give them.

  23. Only Paul Krugman persists in thinking good things will happen if we just throw more money on the barbecue.

    Only Krugman, Obama, His administration, the fed, the dept of treasury and the majority of the US congress….Plus i think Tony still thinks its a good idea.

    just saying it is not only Krugman.

  24. Keynesianism – the proposition that throwing good money after bad will somehow be sound economic advice if only tried on a large enough scale.

    As far as the recent crisis goes it doesn’t exactly take a genius to understand that guaranteeing mortgages for people who could not get one through legitimate means could only end in tears.

    1. Hayek, old buddy, what have I done? The General Theory was intended as a literary game, a psuedo-economics Finnegan’s Wake, never intended it to be taken literally! The horror! The horror!

    2. George, don’t give me any crap. your memory is the faulty one. Everyone knew what James was working on. Bits and pieces appeared almost everywhere for over a decade before publication. I ought to hit you, you know that?

  25. Paul Krugman won a Grammy. I could never cross him. His talent is way too huge.

  26. Miss me yet?

    1. Thank you for weakening the American public’s defenses against welfare statism with your Medicare expansion, and thank you for showing the people they are powerless against expansive corporatism with TARP. I could have never done it without you!

    2. I can say, with 100% honesty, no, I don’t miss you and never, ever will.

  27. Friedman coming up on the Letterman show. This should be a hoot.

    1. Thomas Friedman is also a muppet.

  28. Cavanaugh isn’t worthy of picking the peanuts out of Krugman’s shit.

    1. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

      Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

      9 hrs, 22 minutes.

      1. Max is a liberal AND a liar. And he’s not alone.

        Well, as long as his mom invites him up from the basement for a game of Find the Little Man in the Boat. Otherwise, he’s lonely as hell.

      2. Thanks for leaving

    2. Nobody does it worse
      Makes me feel sad for you
      Nobody bores us quite the way you do
      Beyotch, you’re the worst

      Nobody was looking, still you found us
      We tried to ignore your lame ass posts
      But like the Hells below us
      Your obsession is too much
      Not to laugh off in to the night

      And nobody does it worse
      Though sometimes I wish someone less boring could
      You are a mediocre little loser fuck
      Why do you have to be so bad?

      Peanuts in Krugman’s shit, really?
      You couldn’t come up with anthing better?
      There’s some kind of disease inside you
      That keeps you from being tethered
      To the world for your comments to matter
      So you’ll always be an unoriginal little troll.

      And nobody does it worse
      Makes me feel sad for you
      Nobody does it half as dismally as you
      Beyotch, dumbass, fuckhead, you’re the worst

      Beyotch, you’re the worst
      Dumbass, you’re the worst
      Beyotch, you’re the worst
      Fuckhead, you’re the worst
      Beyotch, you’re the worst
      Beyotch, you’re the worst

      1. I will make this an Internet classic! That was MADE of awesome!

    3. No one’s ever been able to do it because Krugman always eats it before the Democrats can get at it.

  29. krugman is a socialite schmooze, not a good economist. i’ve never seen one many with so many excuses for being wrong…and he’s always wrong.

    google “krugman in wonderland”

    if you go to his nyt articles he has his own fan base. he’s the arianna huffington of economist. party and bullshit!

    *weigel does need to go. those comments clearly crossed the lines of objectivity journalism. his tone is condescending and shows the distaste for the movement he is covering. one can argue that he’s just trying to fit in with the wapo frat. with those comments he’s lost that 1% of credibility he had left.

  30. Cvngh snt wrth f pckng th pnts t f Krgmns sht.

  31. Sums it up perfectly for me. I trash Krugman in the NYT comments section every time he trowels out his nonsense.

    1. On the articles where the Times permits the unwashed to comment, that is.

  32. “It’s always the right time to ignore Paul Krugman” … which is why I’m devoting a blog post to him now? Huh? And, setting aside the fact that Cavanaugh offers nothing in the way of argument that Krugman is wrong in his economic prescriptions,he doesn’t even cite one bit of evidence to substantiate the blog title, “Paul Krugman Now Laughingstock On Two Continents.” All he tells us is that Franz attacked Krugman and the US with what Cavanaugh himself admits are weak arguments. If that makes Krugman a laughingstock, does it do the same to the US? I think y’all should change the name from Reason to Fallacy.

    1. I think y’all should change the name from Reason to Fallacy.

      Glad I don’t need to get up and go to work tomorrow, because it’s time to DRINK!

    2. All he tells us is that Franz attacked Krugman and the US with what Cavanaugh himself admits are weak arguments

      Your reading comprehension is abysmal. Scroll back up and read what TC actually said.

      1. MM:

        Scrolled back up. Didn’t find anything to substantiate the title of this post. Show me one quote that shows that Krugman is now a laughingstock, on either side of the pond, and I’ll admit to all that my reading comprehension skills are abysmal.

        1. Your reading comprehension skills are such a failure you did not even understand my initial post. TC makes an argument after the part quoted (actually he gives in to easily, Krugman’s counter is rubbish), whereas, you claim he did not.

          Even within the terms you laid out above, you lack a basic understanding of words. How he is shown to be thought a laughing stock — you don’t title an essay “How about some facts, Mr. Krugman?” concerning a person you don’t believe to be a clown. Since you have trouble with the basic meaning of words, I’ll reword that last statement so you wont have two follow to instances of negative emphasis. You title an essay, “How about some facts, Mr. Krugman?”, only when it concerns people who are clowns.

          Also, do try to follow the links TC provided to gird his argument. Those words in red are not just there just for emphasis.

          1. two follow to

            ‘to follow two’

            Do not sweat it and blame yourself, Leo, worrying that once again you poor comprehension tripped you up. The fault was mine in that instance, switching up a few words in the tiny window Reason provides.

            1. PS. I left you a little typo, in the case that self reflection may entirely obliterate your self respect, you’ll have at least that to hang on to when you consider shooting yourself.

              Just pick up a good book instead.

              1. MM, if debates were won by insulting your opponents and suggesting that they commit suicide, then you would certainly would have come out on top here. Unfortunately, the best you could do is make the absurd claim that demanding facts or accusing somebody you disagree with of not providing the relevant facts amounts to thinking of them as a clown. Which is obviously, blatantly, false. But, come to think of it, this confusion on your part might explain your belligerent attitude here.

                1. There you go again. I’m not trying to win a debate as you are not yet ready for a debate on policy related matters. I am showing you how wrong you are in the basic usage of words. Another display of your faulty comprehension is that you took a suggestion to read a book and not kill yourself as one suggesting you kill yourself. I made this out of a concern for your well being because people who discover the depth of their ignorance are then faced with a choice on how to proceed from there. Those who are weak of will tend to chose the gravest possibility.

                  I cannot even begin to have a discussion on economics with you until you learn how to use words. You are not a debating partner until you at least accomplish that basic task.

                  However, along with the ample evidence provided by TC (I remind you, the words in red are, links) that Krugman is indeed a laughing stock on two continents, perhaps this will help you understand the weakness of your inattentive complaint that scant evidence has been provided:


                  Mr Obama’s cheerleader-in-chief in arguing the case for continued international deficit spending is the American economist Paul Krugman. This hyperactive Nobel prize winner has achieved almost celebrity status for his extreme neo-Keynesian views. Yet his frequent polemics on the supposed merits of “let rip” public spending long since ceased to be based on objective analysis, and are instead argued as a matter of almost ideological conviction. He’s as much a fundamentalist as the “deficit hawks” he mocks.

                  Nobody is asking America to axe and burn with immediate effect, though you might not think this to read Professor Krugman’s ever more hysterical commentaries on the fiscal austerity sweeping Europe. On the other hand, some sort of a plan for long-term debt reduction, other than blind reliance on growth, might be helpful. Even the mighty US cannot forever rely on the willingness of the Chinese to fund its consumption.

                  1. MM,
                    Did you know that you have become a laughingstock in the United States? It’s true, I’m sorry to say … because I don’t find your arguments to be well-supported. (Never mind whether I’m right about that or not, by your own standards you’re still a laughing stock in this country.)

                    1. Leo, Leo, Leo,

                      The turnabout is the laziest form of argumentation. You will win points with no one with that tact.

                      But, you are at least still around which means for whatever reason that you have as yet dropped the unbecoming partisan warrior facade, you do want to learn.

                      Now, go back up, and in light of everything I’ve pointed out, read what TC actually said, and tell me where you went wrong in your first post.

                    2. MM,
                      I’m just hammering away at my original point, which you have done nothing to refute, that TC provides no evidence to substantiate the title of his post. I freely admit I’m in no position to weigh in on whether Krugman’s economic views are correct or not.

                    3. Leo, the red text TC provides, I’ll link to the two of them, the limit Reason squirrel allows, blast him, so you can see for yourself how this works:



                      Those are used to substantiate TC’s claim. If you are aware of the context of Continental and Anglo-American policy, and the newly minted schism between the Anglos and Americans that Krugman has jumped into with his bizarre anti-austerity crusade, they are more than sufficient.

      2. He said:
        “All he tells us is that Franz attacked Krugman and the US with what Cavanaugh himself admits are weak arguments”
        You said:
        “Your reading comprehension is abysmal. Scroll back up and read what TC actually said.”
        Article said:
        Unfortunately, as Krugman notes in his response, Franz managed to find the weakest arguments against the Times’ fiscal shaman

  33. This quote from William Anderson really gets at the heart of the problem with Krugman and Keynesian bureaucratics,

    First Krugman

    …now the cause is fiscal austerity ? and we keep hearing about supposed examples of countries that experienced a boom after tightening fiscal policy, supposedly demonstrating that austerity is good, not bad, for employment. First was Canada in the 1990s, which turns out to be a quite different story. Now we’re hearing about Ireland in the 1980s.

    So, time for a little research. And whaddya know: this story is also not at all the way it’s being told (pdf). Yes, Ireland had fiscal austerity ? but it also benefited from a devaluation and an inflationary boom in the UK.

    Oh, and Irish interest rates fell sharply, which was possible because they were very high to begin with; that’s not much of a precedent for the United States today, which starts with very low rates.

    So yes, you can boost your economy with fiscal austerity, as long as you also devalue your currency and sharply reduce interest rates; also, incantations will destroy a flock of sheep, if administered with a sufficient portion of arsenic.

    Now Anderson answers Krugman’s bureaucratics with economic logic entirely lacking in Krugman’s work.

    We have to remember that Krugman is demanding that governments can bring back prosperity by (1) borrowing trillions of dollars for which there is no appreciable way to pay back the money unless they (2) repudiate the debt by printing money, which is what Krugman wants them to do.

    There is nothing surprising here, when one is beholden to Keynesian orthodoxy. When interest rates (as set by the central bank) are at what Krugman calls “zero-bound,” then the only entity that can spend freely is government, since it has a legal monopoly on “creating money.”

    However, Krugman’s economic logic in this passage is wanting. First, what does he mean by an “inflationary boom,” and why should he care? In Keynesian thinking, inflation is NECESSARY for bringing an economy to “full employment,” at least until the economy reaches its highest levels of “capacity.” Thus, when one holds to this way of thinking, ALL booms are necessarily “inflationary,” as inflation is required for the boom to occur in the first place (and Krugman holds that booms are good).

    Second, why did Ireland’s interest rates fall? Krugman gives no causality; they just fell. Third, none of this explains why Ireland in the 1980s had a fundamental economic change in which the country went from a quaint, but poor nation that mostly exported people to a place that attracted new investment AND people who wanted to be part of what was happening.

    With Krugman, the change just happened, but lots of places have currency devaluations and even lower interest rates, yet do not have paradigm shifts in the economy. In other words, Krugman really has no causality theory for what happened.

    James Burnham in a 2003 paper in the Independent Review wrote about the Irish boom, and gives much more detail into what happened. Yet, Krugman, holding to his Keynesian orthodoxy, simply gives us one more example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Again, we are dealing with two very different paradigms. In the Keynesian way of thinking, spending is everything. This is very different than “demand” as we know it, economically speaking, in which demand reflects what people want and what they are willing to give up in order to obtain it. In other words, demand cannot be separated from opportunity cost.

    In the Keynesian view, however, “demand” really means “aggregate demand,” which exists when people have “purchasing power” fueled by money. Thus, when government prints more money, it creates new “purchasing power” and, therefore, new “aggregate demand.” There is nothing purposeful about this whole scenario; in fact, there really is nothing economic about it, for real economics deals with opportunity cost, something that pretty much is missing in Keynesianism.

    So, we really are arguing two very different views of the world, and I believe that the Austrian view, while hated by the Krugmans of the world, better explains economic phenomena than does Keynesianism. However, don’t forget that the very first line of Carl Menger’s ground-breaking Principles of Economics makes the important point: “All things are subject to the law of cause and effect.” In other words, to Austrians, causality really matters.

    We are left, then, with the question that I asked in the title of this post. Krugman assumes that government spending financed via borrowing and printing really exacts no opportunity cost. I cannot accept that view under any circumstances. The fundamental building block of economic thinking is opportunity cost, and to ignore it is to jettison economics in the whole.

    Link to Burnham’s work

  34. I am glad that Paul is a laughing stock on two continents. Actually, when I picked up a French paper in Paris this week, his column was included, but I am sure it was for humor purposes. I tell you, this guy Tim Cavenaugh is the real thing in Europe. His name is buzzing all over in London, Frankfurt, and Paris…not.

    1. His name is buzzing all over in London, Frankfurt, and Paris…not.

      And we would give a shit, why, exactly?

    2. Not surprising de Vries as the last Frenchman to understand causality much less economics was a man by the name Bastiat who lived a long time ago.

      There is a damsel named Veronica of the Gaul who is outstanding in the field, however.

  35. The failure is obvious to working people. It’s obvious to unemployed people. It’s obvious to kindergarteners, to dogs and cats. Only Paul Krugman persists in thinking good things will happen if we just throw more money on the barbecue.

    Fine snark, Tim. Kudos!

  36. NPR had the new spin for this issue on morning edition. The dems are trying to pass a small stimulus plan (predictably opposed by republicans). NPR tells us that “Most economists agree that more stimulus is needed to avoid a second wave of unemployment. Republicans disagree and worry about the deficit.”

    Nice debate they set up: Republicans vs Most Economists. Next they brought in expert historians to tell us that in 1937 the stimulus spending of FDR was working, but Republicans forced him to try to balance the budget. This worsened the depression and created lots of unemployment.

    Nice new spin from the White House for their agenda. If you don’t pass another big spending package, anyone who is out of a job is your responsibility.

    For icing on the cake, they ended with “One million unemployed workers saw their extended unemployment benefits end this spring when congress failed to act. “

    1. As a tangent:

      I really don’t mind the unemployment “benefit” extensions nearly as much as I mind the trillions of dollars being funneled into the big banks & corporations who would have otherwise gone out of business.

      On the scale of government acting incredibly stupid, preventing creative destruction and actively subsidizing failure are far and away worse than sending a couple hundred bucks a week to people who can’t find work in the environment government has created.

      Naturally I’d prefer it if all the subsidies of all kinds were dropped, but even in a short term solution sense and the market was allowed to untwist itself quickly, but yeah… We don’t get that, we get exactly the opposite…

      But man… NPR is full of tools.

      1. I just love to see people state that we should have let the entire financial system implode? What kinda of economy would we have now if that had happened? I guess you would not mind that you could not use your credit card since Citi Bank owns the credit card system..I guess you would not have minded that the Dow would be at say 2000…. I guess you would have not minded at unemployment might be 20% or more…. I think that what was done was the only thing possible to avoid complete collapse… But I guess your one of those “rugged individuals”who can grow your own food, make your own clothes, etc..

        1. So instead we shove that eventual failure on down the road, so that our children and their children have to deal with it. Nice.

  37. Excellent piece. I started reading Krugman at the urgings of an acquaintance, and very soon concluded he was someone who should never, ever be listened to. Finally, I am reading the words that so desperately need to be said about this guy, who probably needs his lithium dose adjusted.

  38. I admire Krugman for his restraint. He just has to be chomping at the bit to suggest mopping up the gulf oil spill with $100 bills (they are much more absorbant than the $1-ply bills).

  39. Mr. Krugman is, at best, an average economist. He does excell, though, as a mouthpiece for the socialsists in charge of the U. S. government.
    American voters in November 2010 and 2012 will dispose of the failed policies of the Obama administration away like a soiled diaper. Krugman and his kind will find employment only in academia or the boy toy brothels in Las Vegas.

  40. the scary thing about this guy is that all the wh staffers read his crap.

    when they all get in one room for an ‘economic circle jerk’ its the only thing on they ca summon up in their minds.

    There were three factors that drove the 80’s and 90’s…

    low marginal rates, high inflation/interest rates that led to savings in the early 80’s, and a substantial cold war drawdown.

  41. Of course Krugman is wrong, and wrong for America. The missed point is that his zany views sell advertising, which is the understandable, but most misunderstood goal of for profit media.

    As proof that capitalism still exists and is still favored in the US; the free market has been increasingly decisive in buying less of the NY Times.

  42. the largest disconnect between krugman and reality, which encapsualtes the current admin’s economic model…

    hauser’s law(really just a correlation) which points out that regardless of any tax rates from the govt over the past 70 years, govt revenue falls at 19% of us gdp.

    krugman believes that our govt should be at 25% spending, relative to gdp.

    outside of a 15% vat, we never close the gap, and will continually run a 6%(gdp) budget deficit.

    so what does the wh decide to do? spend as if they have already found a way to make 25% of gdp and hope that we get desperate enough to enact a vat, after they take us past 20 trillion of debt.

    obama’s memoir title?
    Burning Down My Master’s House, part deux.

  43. Right on! Tim, you nailed it. Finally, someone who calls out this dangerous, irresponsible gadfly.

  44. Tim Cavanaugh?

    Never heard of him.

  45. And if he’s picked to be the new head of OMB, what then? Can we spend our way to fiscal health?

    Can you eat yourself thinner?

  46. Just another lib whack living in loo loo land.

  47. Yes, Paul Krugman is a laughing stock on two Continents, but his crowning achievement: being a cancerous boil upon the anus of humanity, on four Continents. His intellect is truly a National treasure.

  48. Tony said: “… Must be nice not having a non-stimulus world to compare to …”

    Actually we do have a NON-Stimulus world example.
    Check out your history “The Forgotten Depression”
    A truly conservative President can end a depression in 18 months. How long was the “Great Depression” and our “Great Recession” with government spending and bailouts.

    Here’s another reference:

  49. Krugman is a prime example of the far left liberal’s indoctrinated ideology. It get’s in the way of the Truth, and blinds anyone who adheres to it. They, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Barney Franks, etc., end up destroying everything they touch, and at the end of the day, it’s all gone.
    But in Politics, as well as Finances/Wall Street, it’s at the cost of our Nation’s Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty, as well as our Fiscal well being. Americans, the Patriotic ones, all have to unite and beat back this Tyrannical Regime of Obama and Pelosi and Reid. But even after we do, it could be years, if not a decade or two, till we fully recover from these far leftwing Liberal Marxist Communist Facist nutjobs, in the Federal Govt. right now.
    I say that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Barney Franks, should all be Impeached, Tried and Jailed, for high Crimes/Treason, against the U.S. Constitution, and all Americans.

  50. Kudos Mr. Cavanaugh. I’ve often wondered how this useful idiot ever won a Nobel in anything. Any moron with a calculator can see the current economic activities supported by Kruggy simply aren’t sustainable or beneficial. Clearly Kruggy does not own a calculator.

  51. Nobel Prizes are becoming increasingly ridiculous.

    I’m pretty certain that Alfred Nobel didn’t intend the “Nobel Laureate” title as a license to peddle idiocy.

    I’m talking to you, Steven Chu.

    1. …said the dumb faggot who has accomplished absolutely ZERO in his life (except for sucking over 1000 cocks)

  52. Go Germany.
    Show us the way.
    Our Government is corrupted beyond realtiy. Holdfast and protect your people. represent. Like our leaders USED to.

  53. Paul Krugman’s just another brilliant, useful, socialist idiot!

  54. You know, “drink-yourself-sober” does work; first you puke, then you pass out, and ten hours later you wake up with a hang over and the dry heaves. Most people try it once, maybe several times in the teenage years, and then grow up.

  55. Wasn’t the quote, “Dammit Janet?”

    I tend to agree, but what would an Irishman be without his spirits?

    The real truth is hes right.

    Its out of control

    Charley Miller
    Unaffiliated for Colorado’s US Senate

  56. “and even on its own narrow, nebulous terms, it has been a colossal failure. The failure is obvious to working people.”

    Thanks Tim! Of course there is nothing in your lousy little op-ed to back any of your claims up besides what you think about in your own head and your need to call Paul Krugman names. There is legitimate criticism of Krugman’s advocacy for increased government stimulus – mostly to do with how one models consumer, producers, and investor expectations about the future.

    As far as the success of the stimulus, instead of pointing to its supposed resounding failure, maybe look at the ongoing debate (

    To measure the success you need to agree on standards – what was the stimulus supposed to do? Create growth or stave of future declines in growth? To create jobs or to create any form of economic activity? Recent surveys have claimed that a majority of economists do not believe the stimulus is created jobs, which is not the same as thing as the stimulus working. Was the stimulus to create the basis for long-term growth or give a short jolt to short-term GDP in order to buy time for the private sector to absorb the losses of the recession? Are the purported failures of the stimulus due to the fact that it might have been too small and too late?

    The fact that a large number of Americans believe the stimulus did not work, does not mean it didn’t What would the alternate universe without stimulus look like? The point is that you have convinced yourself of an answer without considering the parameters of the argument.

  57. Unfortunately, he is not alone in his belief that we need more, not less spending.

  58. Thank you for this article.

    It’s long past time to stop smoking Kremlin Krugman’s crypto-Keynesian crackpipe.

    November can’t come soon enough to finally shut him and the other Barack-whisperer, Friedman, up.

  59. The NYT has given us many notorious an eponym, such as Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, Thomas a Friedman, and now Paul Krugman. Makes me wonder why anyone would bother with the rag sheet from NY.

  60. No argument – you resort to ad hominem attacks because either 1) you have no evidence 2) are too lazy to collect some 3) too arrogant to think you need to engage the arguments of a Nobel prize winner 4) all of the above

  61. Between the author and the majority of comments, there is no “Reason” anywhere to be found.

    I’ll take the writings of a Nobel Prize winner in economics over you rubes any day.

    1. Yeah, and Yassir Arafat and Al Gore both won Nobel prizes too. Doesn’t really inspire a lot of confidence in the Nobel committee, now does it?

      Any fool with even an ounce of common sense can tell you that you can’t keep on spending money you don’t have and hope to keep borrowing indefinitely to be able to do it. This rule applies just as much to governments aa it does to businesses and individuals, no matter how much certain Nobel prize-winning economists might want to assure us that “deficits don’t matter.” Want proof? Look at Greece. The financial markets were and are telling us in no uncertain terms that deficits DO matter! And I’ll trust them over some “ivory tower” economist any day of the week.

    2. I’ll take the writings of a Nobel Prize winner in economics over you rubes any day.

      Which makes you a follower, and an unintelligent one at that. Hayek also won a Nobel Prize in 1974, yet somehow you fail to acknowledge that his work reflected the blame for boom and bust cycles was solely due to government and it’s control of the banking system.

      You don’t take the writings of a Nobel Prize winner, because it is you who are the rube.

  62. There is nothing wrong with massive stimulus if it is structured in the right way. I would have the Fed do trillions in QE by buying long term low interest bonds that are directed toward huge, **revenue producing** public works projects. I am talking about toll roads here. If the toll road can produce enough future revenue to service a 2% 30 year bond, the stimulus can put millions of construction workers back to work without increasing taxes. Other types of transportation systems might work for QE also. This would be QE done right.

  63. This silly attack piece is full of the old bull. Krugman remains right. Failure to recognize sound economics does not make one stand on solid ground to call the one who is right a laughing stock.

    Europe won’t do stress tests on its banks because it knows they have cellar rot the same as our banks do.

    As to your “colossal failure” childish comments, well that makes YOU a laughing stock. Have we rolled into s depression or even another recession? NO. Have we already created more net jobs under Obama than the tax cut Bush baby intellects did in the entire two miserable terms he was in office? YES.

    You mentioned facts but you gave us tripe.

    1. Stop listening to Olberdork. Since Jan-09, we’ve lost 2.5 million jobs.

      Additionally, you’re just talking net jobs. The problem hasn’t been the jobs lost, it’s been that not enough jobs haven’t been created. What you say?? More jobs were lost under Bush in 2000 (internet bubble) & Sep 11th, but were offset by more than enough increase in jobs created.

      See Joe Biden. He said that the 8M jobs ain’t coming back. It’s job creation that’s the problem, first and foremost. Jobs lost is the second problem.

      Let’s see: I’m a small business owner:

      My health care is going to go up, regardless of what Obama says.

      My tax rate, both corporate and individual are going up.

      He wants to raise my energy costs.

      Gee, why don’t I go out and hire someone.

  64. If it were only Paul Krugman that thought that more trillions of corrupt spending and debt was the cure for the economy, who would care? The problem is that Obama and the Democrats in Congress believe it. Now that the corrupt stimulous bill and the additional trillions they’ve spent have failed miserably their answer is to double down. Obama went to the G20/8 not with a message of restraint. He took Paul Krugmans message of open the floodgates to spending with him. The crazy people have been in complete control of the asylum for the past 1 1/2 years. We need massive political change in Nov if we are ever going to start to recover!!!

  65. You D-Bags that try to hang the state of the world on Obama are pathetic. You remeber that TARP was a Republican invention right? It’s even better than that: the first TARP vote failed. Then they repackaged it with a bunch of pork, and got a bunch or Republicans to switch their votes. Remember that? I do. I remember how pathetic Republicans were, and are.

    1. Yes, the Republicans are pathetic, but that doesn’t make the Democrats any less evil.

    2. Well, if you really want to know the truth, this whole mess started back in the 1990s when the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats rammed through something called the “Fair Housing Affordability Act” which basically required banks to make home loans to low-income borrowers irrespective of whether or not they could actually make the mortgage payments. Why? Because social-engineering Democrat liberals wanted to feel good about themselves by assuring us all that “everyone should be able to own a home.” Banks who weren’t willing to make these highly risky loans were threatened by the Clinton administration, and so securitization was devised as a way for banks to slough off the risks on others. THAT was the genesis of the housing bubble, pal. And from 2000 through 2008, it was Republicans … John McCain in particular … who sounded the alarm about the coming crisis and Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who blithely assured us that all was well with the housing market.

      So now it’s the Republicans who are pathetic? Try again, D-bag. The plain truth is that socialism simply doesn’t work. Never has, never will.

      1. What a crock. If the Fair Housing Affordability Act was such an disaster, why didn’t Republicans do anything about it when they controlled every lever of governmental power for 4 years? I know D-bags like you love to blame the poor for all of the evil in the world, but reality often gets in the way. The notional value of CDO’s in 2008 was well over 40 trillion. And you think that the poor caused the collapse. Turn off Fox News and read a book on occasion.

        1. …why didn’t Republicans do anything about it when they controlled every lever of governmental power for 4 years?

          Because Republicans suck ass, you dumb Democrat cock sucking robot. It’s shitbag true believers like you who are enabling the losers to fuck everything up worse than it would be all so you can bullshit yourselves that you give a crap about the ‘poor’.

    3. Yep, and I, a Republican, was appalled at the time. I continue to be appalled as the Democrats take us even further down this fiscally irresponsible road. It’s probably true that the only REAL reason the Republicans are now arguing fiscal responsibility is because they think it’ll get them more votes come this fall.

      But they’re the only ones who seem to be arguing fiscal responsibility AT ALL right now. The Democrats would turn us into another, larger, Greece. . .and drag the entire world’s economy along with us.

  66. That article contains one of the biggest lies of the GOP, mainly that the stimulus plan has “failed to slow job losses” and has been a failure. At the time Obama took power WE WERE LOOSING 700,000 JOBS A MONTH. Wrap your mind around that number. In the last 5 months, because of the stimulus plan, were are averaging 100,000 added jobs per month. The stimulus plan stopped the bleeding and prevented us from going into a depression. http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…..023691.php

    This is like a baseball game where we were down 12-0 in the first inning. There are no 12-run homeruns, there are no quick fixes. It will take time to get back where we need to be. We need to get a run here and a run there to get back into the game; right now we are down 12-4 in the 3rd inning. We need to keep to the plan, we need more stimulus money from the feds, WE NEED TO EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS NOW!!!.


    1. The only jobs Onbama saved were job-killer government bureaucrats, the very people we need to get rid of. That and payouts to ACORN and other Democrat thug operations.

      1. What is more, those state jobs are going to go, this year, next year. Any stimulus money is going to run out before the tax revenue stream gets going again, not least because those revenues depend on industry reviving, something which the Obama administration has contributed a big fat zero to. The stimulus of government jobs is simply an economic charade that contributes nothing to long-term economic performance, even of revenue-hungry government!

    2. Rick is right. We’re continuing to bleed manufacturing jobs due to this administration’s split personality over environment vs. job creation.

      And how long would you have us extend unemployment benefits for, anyway? 99 weeks isn’t enough anymore? Do we do 3 years? 4? At that point, doesn’t unemployment become more like a career? How does providing endless unemployment benefits improve our long-term fiscal situation. . .because I cannot see any positives. . .only negatives.

  67. Krugman is the lifetime recipient of the Josef Goebbels Big Lie prize for cramming more lies into a single sentence more often than any other liberal fascist propagandist, living or dead. Laughingstock he may be, but the ideology of liberal fascist elitism is extremely damaging and dangerous to liberty.

  68. Paul Krugman has been a laughing stock for a long, long time. What you see in his columns is what happens when someone spends his entire life safely ensconced in the hallowed halls of academia and away from the real world.

  69. There’s no refutation of Krugman’s arguments here and in many of the comments, just irrational stupidity by people who haven’t yet lost their jobs and who don’t think they will.

    1. Do you really require an itemized refutation of Krugman’s arguments, when such refutation is obvious even to first year macro-econ students? Spending money you don’t have now requires borrowing. Borrowing requires repaying + interest. That means with each stimulus, we weigh down our future economic well-being. We can see where Krugman would lead us in the form of Greece’s current troubles. It’s clear as day.

  70. The Nobel Committee sure can pick ’em.

    We should call it the laughingstock award. Gore, Carter, Obama, Krugman. and more

  71. Joseph Dillard, there are published repudiations of Krugman available far and wide, by parties far more expert than me. If you need one, Google it… This is a venue to detest Krugman, not repudiate him technically. He is a vile, smarmy, arrogant, silverspoon liberal, with as much tolerance for debate and reason as I have for ingesting rubbing alcohol. Most reasonable observers have rightly concluded that he’s wrong, and kind of an a-hole. I see there are some fools here that still want to follow him, but the proportion of those fools is dwindling. Thank g-d…..

  72. And to swift11, the “truth in the funhouse mirror” award. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Dodd, and other liberal provocateurs are the architects of the lending debacle and are most directly responsible for this mess. What kind of idiotic statement is it to blame republicans for not doing more to stop them? That’s like blaming the police for not doing more to stop rioters (and that would be a liberal position, wouldn’t it). Frank and his vile ilk would have tarred and feathered anyone in their way as “racists”, etc. I don’t blame the poor, I blame Frank (and people like you) for lying to the poor, promising something that can’t be true, blaming and spinning when the chickens come home to roost. It’s nearly the behavior of a puppet dictator, which is, of course, what we nearly have in the whitehouse/congress…..

  73. Krugman predicted that this stimulus plan would have exactly the results that it has had–inadequate ones.

    He argued passionately for a large influx, well-directed, and based his stand on the experience of the Great Depression, when FDR first endorsed an inadequate stimulus, it was not effective, and a muscular stimulus followed and was successful. Perhaps because the current legislation was left to Congress to formulate, and most definitely because Olympia Snowe would not vote for the bill until resources vital to states, especially industrial ones, were cut, the bill has in fact turned out to be inadequate.

    Too bad. Because it turns out Krugman was right, and it’s too bad the administration did not have him on their team, and really too bad that no Republicans would come forward to help, and those that did, made foolish changes in return for their votes.

    1. The depression in the US became the Great Depression because it went on, and on, and on, precisely because FDR’s stimuluses of various kinds, muscular and whimpy failed, dismally, chronically. It was mobilization for WWII that ended depression in the US.

      1. And what exactly was WW2 but nothing but a stimulus plan on steroids

        Goverment debt as a % of GDP, was like 140% of GDP after WW2, its only 80% now.

        Also during the boom years of the 1950’s and 1960’s the highest marginal tax rates were double almost triple what they are now.

        Basically refuting every randroid, austrian nonsense ever spewed.

        1. Britain’s debt coming out of WWI put an end to the UK as the world’s leading economy. America was lucky coming out of WWII that a booming world economy allowed it to pay down its debt from WWII very quickly. (PS. I have no interest in Rand or the Austrians, just in common sense.)

  74. Krugman has never been right about anything. His only function is to serve as an intellectual fig leaf for corrupt politicians like Obama who are intent on unconscionable spending of our children’s future.

    If investors and employers are afraid that politicians are out of control with insane spending, then more insane spending will always fail to stimulate and will indeed have the opposite effect.

    Every person who has run a lemonade stand understands this even though Krugman and his ivory tower Keynesians do not.

    AlGore got more stimulus from his masseuse than the American people ever got from Obama’s Porkulus.

  75. Funny how people thinks is a absurd to put money os stimulus, that do have retourn eventualy, but has no problems expendind trillions every year in stupid and useless wars…

  76. Ah Krugman, the cynical bottom scaper who recommended that states gorge on debt and then let the debt depreciate over a very long time, i.e. use other people’s money, and then shrink its value to nothing. Thankfully investors are not dolts. These days they buy US bonds for 4 years. Makes one think that Krugman is a character from South Park. Krugman the dumkopf economist.

  77. Krugman is a Nobel prizing economist but his field is not macroeconomics and his opinions have to stand on their own merits and not his reputation as an economist. There is something unbalanced about his columns – psychologically unbalanced not politically unbalanced. He is just not a credible person.

  78. Remember when winning the Nobel Prize used to mean something?

  79. One of the best bits of macro-economic advice I’ve ever heard. .

    “Carefully read Paul Krugman’s suggestions, and then do the exact opposite.”

  80. Krugman and Bob Beckel from Fox.

  81. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can consider it fiscally responsible to saddle future generations with the burden of our econonmic misdeeds. That’s what Krugman’s approach would ammount to.

    What happens when there’s a major economic correction then? Will they in turn saddle their future generations with even MORE crushing debt?

  82. The only laughing stock will be the author of this column once his Austrian Rand roid Hooverite vision of the world gets implemented and the recession deepens and goverment debt remains sky high.

  83. Perhaps the author can explain why if inflation and goverment debt are such issues.

    Why is the 10 year bond rate at 3%?^TNX+Basic+Chart&t=2y

  84. Krugman was critical of the stimulus from the beginning as being inadequate, has offered cogent arguments for more stimulus, acknowledge counter arguments, addressed the reasonable ones, attacked the inane, and taken a position base on his considerable knowledge and expertise. He may be wrong, and he may rub a lot of people the wrong way, but I think we have gotten to the point were it is incumbent on those who disagree with him to engage in the argument in the greek sense, free from fallacy and factually consistent. Snide commentary, puerile punditry and calculated misapprehension do not advance an argument, and if you “simply cannot comprehend” perhaps you have not thought it through enough, and should save the rhetoric and disingenuous queries until you do. I appreciate your focus on “news, views and abuse,” but how about just a little Reason?

  85. He’s not Irish. He’s a Jew. Ludwig von Mises is Irish. Shurenbeggaraagh, we Gaels only claim winners.

  86. I would still go to Mr. Krugman for economics lessons rather than Mr. Kavanaugh, any day.

  87. So… Tim?

    A year on… how is your opinion of Paul’s – still basically the same – position(s) on these matters shaping up? Hmm? I just noticed that a search of for ‘Cavanaugh’ and ‘Krugman’ shows that you have not revisited this in 2011, after a handful of articles in 2010. Correct me if I am wrong.

    Why not?

  88. Under a reverse mortgage, the homeowner converts the equity he has built up over time into cash, in the form of either a lump sum, a monthly payment to the owner, or a line of credit. Unlike a traditional home loan, a reverse mortgage has no monthly payments — no repayment is required until the owner sells the home or is no longer using it as a principal residence. Many homeowners like the flexibility and cash that come with reverse mortgages, but the loans do come with a price: notoriously high closing costs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.