United Kingdom

Paul Krugman, the Doctor, Now Trying to Screw Up Another Country

|

Somebody needed to say it.

New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is no longer content to keep poisoning the United States. In a recent column he urged the United Kingdom to adopt the same economic quackery he has been recommending to the Obama Administration for two years now—exponentially expanding debt, destruction of the currency, universal welfare and total centralization of the economy. You can see how well trillion-dollar deficits are working out on this side of the pond, but fortunately the UK media still have prominent commentators who are willing to oppose Krugman's all-bloodletting-all-the-time approach. Daily Telegraph assistant editor Jeremy Warner asks the question on everybody's mind: "Will someone please shut Krugman up?"

The striking thing about my last two visits to the US is just how worried by the deficit most Americans are. Indeed they are ashamed by it, and rightly take the view that unless it is tackled soon, it will seriously undermine America's long term economic prospects, not to mention its positions in the world. Obama's failure to realise this, and to continue to force a minority liberal agenda down everyone's throat, is the reason he's lost the plot. To restore his presidency, he needs to move towards the centre, and that includes the construction of a robust deficit reduction plan that begins with dispatch.

Professor Krugman suggests that Britain has nothing to fear from excessive public debt, which is still as things stand below its long run historical average. He's technically right about this, but like a lot of statistics used to support a particular, ideological position, it's completely meaningless. Looking at the path of UK public debt as a percentage of GDP, there have indeed been quite long periods when it has been much higher than it is now, but these periods mainly coincided with prolonged and all embracing war – first the Napoleonic wars, then later the Boer war and the first world war. Britain had barely recovered from the financial consequences of the first world war by the time the second world war hit.

The big point missed by those who think elevated public debt doesn't matter is that these periods of excessive debt utterly crippled the UK economy. Indeed, Britain's decline through the twentieth century as an economic superpower directly correlates with increased indebtedness. Fighting wars is not good for economic health.

Warner gets extra credit for eschewing the absurd honorific "Dr. Krugman," which is frequently applied to the pundit you'd least want to have on hand when somebody has a stroke. "Professor"—which is what you call the piano player in a whorehouse—is the only proper title for the artist formerly known as Paul Krugnuts.

NEXT: The Buy Now, Pay Later Strategy For Health Care Reform

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. He can continue writing his same stupid column/blog post every day for the next two years telling everyone that he’s brilliant and everyone else is stupid, but it doesn’t matter. Only the fools currently running America are still listening the schmuck Krugnutter. Everyone else in the world got smart and tuned him out a while ago.

    1. Clearly, you have developed a tolerance. Nurse, more leeches for this patient.

    2. The Administration listens to Krugman? I thought it was the other way around. Isn’t his assigned role to defend whatever they do?

  2. Nice to see the world catching on to his nonsense! No maybe he can get back to jerking off over the Foundation series novels again so the society can clean up he and his ilk have left for us!

  3. Paulie Krugnuts…annoying to the entire Anglosphere.

  4. More leeches, please.

    1. Enough with the leeches! You can’t just keep piling leeches on everyone and expect it to solve anything! Don’t you realize that people don’t want their blood to be slowly sucked out by hundreds of parasites?

      Oh, so it works? Hell, give me some leeches…ahhhh.

      1. There’s a scene in ‘Jackass 3’ (which I’ve not yet seen) where Johnny Knoxville recites the Gettysburg Address while dressed as Abe Lincoln, complete with a beard of leeches.

  5. With an ego the size of krugnuts we’re going to be hearing from him for a while. No petulant serfs are going to sway him and his ginormous intellect.

    1. One of two things is going to happen; either the US will step back from the fiscal cliff and things will get better or they won’t and things will get immeasurably worse. Either result will completely confound Pauli Krugnuts’ predictions. I expect his behavior and writing to get more and more bizarre as time goes on. This is not going to end well for him.

    2. Some billianaire needs to offer $1,000,000 to anyone who can come up with proof of a Krugnuts sex scandle.

      1. He had sex with a…?

        1. … mirror.

          1. That explains the cuts. He told me he cut himself shaving.

            1. I’ll never tell!

  6. He’s a nobel prize winning economist. Yes, let’s instead listen to some guy who has a paper route on what to do about the economy.

    1. yes, let’s appeal to authority. That is the ticket. Credentialism! That will get us out of this mess.

      1. Appeal to authority arguments are basically an admission that the person talking doesn’t know enough about the issue to give a credible opinion on his own.

      2. Well, better to rely on the positions of someone who has expertise training in a field as opposed to some guy selling flair pens (unless it’s flair pens I want). Let’s see, why don’t we have U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan made by an English teacher instead of a general. That’s the ticket!

        1. Which expert are you going to listen to? Many experts, including the ones in the government of the UK think Kruginuts is out of his tree. Why are they wrong and he right?

          And even your example is a bad one. Sure, generals know more than the lay person usually. But not always. MacArthur was certainly a great general with a lot of knowledge. But that didn’t make him any more correct when he said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea.

          The best way to tell when an expert is wrong is when his advice magically lines up to all of his assumptions about the world. Kruginuts is a great example of this.

          1. So, if it doesn’t matter who’s leading the troops in a battle, why not just grab any joker hangin’ out by the corner bar. Certainly would be cheaper.
            Yeah, I’m betting your advice runs counter to your assumptions.

            1. Reading comprehension isn’t your forte. That must suck.

              1. or yours, apparently

            2. …Not if I see you first, sonny boy!

            3. Holy shit, you are stupid.

              1. ad hominems say so much more about the accuser than the accused.

        2. Well, better to rely on the positions of someone who has expertise training in a field as opposed to some guy selling flair pens (unless it’s flair pens I want).

          Fine. Now shut the fuck up.

          1. I might if it were YOUR blog, you officious prick.

        3. You must have thought Bush and Obama’s appointing of Bernanke was the bee’s knees, then.

          I mean, it’s not like Krugman has ever created a job or anything–he’s got THEORIES! And PREDICTIONS! And that’s all that matters.

        4. I guess we should never mind the fact that OTHER nobel-winning economists think Krugman is a damned fool.

          1. Names! I want names! Or it’s potato guns at dawn, sir!

    2. >Paul Krugman
      >nobel prize

      Drink.

      1. 1. There is no Nobel Prize for Economics.

        2. Krugman won The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences. The Sveriges Riksbank is the central bank of Sweden. He won a prize in economics from the central bank of a socialist country.

        3. He won it for something that has NOTHING to do with inflation or government debt, etc. He won it “for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.”

    3. You do know that the “prize” isn’t awarded by those same Nobel folks who award prizes in the lesser arts…you know….physics, chemistry etc!? It’s awarded by the central bank of Sweden. And guys like Krugman who espouse the principal of spend, spend, spend are frequently awarded prizes that reflect that mindset of the institutions who stand to benefit from the generation and dispersal of said funds!

      Appeal to “prize” argumentation nitwit!

      1. Oh, so Friedman and Hayek were Keynesians, too? L’arn somethin’ ever’day.

        1. Yeah, I don’t remember Friedman and Hayek using their prize to “sanctify” every idiotic thing that comes out of their hole! Were it possible to inquire of them I suspect they would be horrified that an empty suit like Krugman was ever considered for one!

          1. Besides, didn’t Krugabe win his prize for some theory of international trade, which has shit-all to do with domestic economic policy in a recession?

    4. I could take your appeal to authority somewhat seriously if the guy had ever accomplished something truly noteworthy, but the man has never created a single job or any real wealth for anyone. As far as I know he has never even given a solid piece of investment advice that paid off or won a big bet with some competing economic theorist.

      I wouldn’t pay even one depreciated U.S. dollar for his Nobel Prize, and most of the world seems to agree. It’s not good for anything whatsoever other than providing him with a megaphone to proclaim his own brilliance on a daily basis.

      1. I thought the business of economists was to analyze economies, not “create” jobs. I think you’re mixing categories.
        It was free market economists who led us into this debacle, advocating deregulating the stock market. That actually destroyed jobs. Keynesianism, true Keynesianism, implemented by true experts deserves a chance to make it right.

        1. Boy, I love to see the Keynesians trot out the “no true scotsman” argument that they so love to accuse Austrians of misusing. It definitely signals their beloved theories are teeering on the edge of histories dustbin after more than 6 decades of continuous adherence.

        2. And when are we going to try true socialism? Teh peoples are all for it in North Korea and Cuba. Just ask Kim and Fidel.

          1. like libertarianism has never been tried, either, right?

    5. Do you know what field of economics he won the Nobel for? Hint: it wasn’t aggregate demand.

    6. He won the Nobel for his work on international trade. He really doesn’t have that much official credentials in this sort of government finance.

      As an econ. guy, I hate how people treat econ- most economists are highly specialized, with at best above average knowledge in many areas of the economy outside of their field. People act like being a credentialed economist means you must know a lot about every area of econ.

      It’s like how people assume every scientist is qualified to comment on every single issue, regardless of their own focus. A quantum physicist does not necessarily know anything about geology.

    7. His nobel prize had nothing to do with his opinions on the effect of government spending on recessions. Economics is a very broad field and Nobels are awarded for specific work, not general brilliance. Just because someone has done some good work in one area of economics doesn’t mean we should believe what he says about everything to do with the economy. That is why you shouldn’t necessarily listen to Krugman.

      1. “Just because someone has done some good work in one area of economics doesn’t mean we should believe what he says about everything to do with the economy.”

        But sports is like that. I’m an Olympic gold medalist gymnast And I would kick some serious ass in the NFL. If only they allowed women to play in the NFL. But NO. They’re just afraid of my mad skills.

        1. I’m not afraid of your skills Tiffany. I would pay good cash to see those skills demonstrated. In private.

          1. This is why I’m glad I’m not a woman. I’m as pervy as the next guy, but it seems like women deserve a break from “teh sexy talk” every now and again.

            ‘course that assumes that Tiffany is telling the truth. Could be a dude trying to provoke.

            1. I guess I just assumed it was an obvious troll/smartass, and responded in kind. I doubt an actual olympic gymnast (net weight 90 lbs) would seriously think she could play in the NFL. Anyway, if I offended you, I’m sorry.

    8. The world is my ENRON.

  7. Thanks Tim,

    I was not aware of the proper way to address the piano player at a whorehouse.

    1. Yeah, can someone explain the origin of this? It’s not obvious to me.

    2. We always called him “Dad.”

      1. +1

  8. “is the reason he’s lost the plot.”

    The British have the best idioms

    1. They do. You could also say that Pauli Krugnuts is “out of his tree”.

    2. CONCORDE: Actually, I think I’m all right to come with you–
      LAUNCELOT: No, no, sweet Concorde! Stay here! I will send help as
      soon as I have accomplished a daring and heroic rescue in my own
      particular… (sigh)
      CONCORDE: Idiom, sir?
      LAUNCELOT: Idiom!

  9. I don’t know why everyone is ridiculing Paul Krugman. He is a learned man and the reforms that the Obama administration has signed haven’t had the opportunity to work yet when viewed from an historical perspective.

    1. Because he’s a figure worthy of ridicule?

      1. If Obama were white, he would be given a fair chance to succeed. Both parties just want Obama to fail to justify their own agendas.

        1. No, I believe that the ridicule of the last idiot to hold the office began right about the time he made the mistake of opening his mouth!

          It’s really not a black/white thing.

        2. LOL. It’s always racism. At least both parties are racists in your made up world. I’ll play along a little bit: How do the Democrats’ agenda not align with Obama’s agenda?

          1. If Obama fails, then it proves to Democrats that African Americans can’t do anything right and must be taken care of.

            1. Oh my god but we’re narcissistic! This thread started because like a rat in a science experiment Paul Krugman never met a problem; economic, social, political that he didn’t think couldn’t be solved by pressing the “More Money” lever in the cage! Now you think that because Obama is black we want him to fail and we’re willing to scuttle the future of the country in order to make the point.

              Spare me!

              Go back to “Victimisation Studies 101”, They’ll pay more attention to your arguments there.

              1. Just think about it. If Obama does well, he makes African Americans weak and dependent with gov’t programs and the Democrats are happy. If Obama fails, the Democrats will think African Americans can’t competently hold high office and need more gov’t programs. Also, if Obama fails, the Republicans will blame “Socialism” in order to disguise their own racism. But if Obama does well, Republicans will have to admit that Socialism actually does work AND African Americans aren’t inferior like Republicans like to think.

                1. Why is a guy that is of mixed race get called “African american”? If he fails, why isn’t it the “white”* half that failed?

                  *: terms like “black” and “white” are so ridiculously anachronistic that I don’t actually acknowledge any use for them

                  1. Haven’t you heard of the “one drop rule?”

                2. If Obama does well, he makes African Americans weak and dependent with gov’t programs and the Democrats are happy.

                  ????

                  If Obama fails, the Democrats will think African Americans can’t competently hold high office and need more gov’t programs.

                  There’s a government program to get blacks into “High Office”? Shit, I’ve got black friends! I’ll have to let them know.

                  Also, if Obama fails, the Republicans will blame “Socialism” in order to disguise their own racism.

                  Since when was “socialism” part of Obamas governing strategy? He claims to be democrat and I’ll take him at his word.

                  And yes, yes opposing the black guy for whatever reason is of course racism! It always is and ever will be racism! How silly of me….if only Obama was white then all of this nonsense would be fine!

                  But if Obama does well, Republicans will have to admit that Socialism actually does work AND African Americans aren’t inferior like Republicans like to think.

                  What are you…like ten maybe eleven? I expect this sort of tortured logic from a dimwit like Tony…but you Long Tusk….from you I expect something better. Now go back and re-read the section and try it again later.

        3. Oh here we go.

          So everyone elected him because they wanted him to fail right? See I missed the memo that said vote for failure.

          While there is still racism everywhere (*cough* Obama’s church) – the majority of people just don’t like his policies and know it all attitude. Only people who can’t face those facts bring up skin color.

          1. “the majority of people just don’t like his policies and know it all attitude.”

            Now that you mention it, he is kind of uppity.

            1. Obama is not “uppity” you racist, he’s just presumptuously arrogant.

              1. I’ve always thought he was prematurely proud.

        4. I don’t remember all of the rules of the Reason drinking game. Do we drink on accusations of racism, or is it just for “For a magazine called Reason”?

          1. Go ahead and break the rules.

            It’s entirely reasonable to do so.

    2. I don’t know why everyone is ridiculing Paul Krugman. He is a learned manwell-heeled fool

      Fixed that for you.

  10. “You can see how well trillion-dollar deficits are working out on this side of the pond, but fortunately the UK media still have prominent commentators who are willing to oppose Krugman’s all-bloodletting-all-the-time approach.”

    There’s something about Economists that just loves to be counterintuitive.

    Being counterintuitive to some Econmists is like what celibacy is to priests and nuns.

    I suspect it may be the origin of some of the Economist’s worst sins too. You know the old saying, “an argument so bad, only an intellectual could fall for it”? I think that starts in the bud with wanting to be counterintuitive, and some Economists just feel compelled to defend their counterintuitive ideas all the way to the wall.

    And when there’s no more wall, and they’re still defending it anyway despite all evidence to the contrary?

    That’s when you get Krugnuts.

    1. “Dismal science” is a total misnomer. If you ask me, being an “economist” is one of the greatest jobs on earth. All you have to produce are ideas, and no matter have often your proclamations turn out to be completely wrong, you still get to keep your plush job at CNBC or the New York Times.

  11. “Professor” — which is what you call the piano player in a whorehouse . . .

    Wait… So Professor Longhair never held a faculty position at Tulane?

    1. He is great though.

  12. Heck of a job, Krugabe!

  13. When people finally stop listening to him, Krugabe will return to his first love: baboon fluffing. He abandoned a promising career to go into economics.

  14. The cool thing is Krugman vs. libertards is testable. We’ll see how austerity measures work in the places they’re implemented in due time. How’s Ireland doing, btw?

    1. Hey Krugman fellator…you realize that he missed at least some of the classes….you remember, the ones where Keynes acknowledged that the money eventually needed to be repaid!

      Where can I send your portion of the bill?

      1. Krugman and I understand that perfectly well. But in the midst of an attempted recovery from a massive downturn is not the time.

        1. The problem is that to guys like you and the Krugnutter, there is never truly a good time to reduce borrowing and spending. It’s always some indeterminate time in “the future”, but never, ever the present. Like Wimpy, you’ll always gladly pay us Tuesday for a hamburger today.

          1. Well Krugman would say that focusing on deficit reduction now will just make the deficit problem bigger in the future, since revenues will continue to be low.

            After all, the major reason deficits have skyrocketed is because of depressed revenue rather than government spending. The austerity side of this argument is also the pro-deficits side.

            1. Even if we assume that spending isn’t the problem, that does not mean that spending is the solution.

            2. So when you have less money to pay for something, you spend even more. It’s genius!

            3. After all, the major reason deficits have skyrocketed is because of depressed revenue rather than government spending.

              Did you even bother to closely look at the freaking chart you linked to? It doesn’t support your own statement, dumbass! Since before the recession in ’07, revenue is down roughly half a trillion dollars, and spending is up roughly a trillion dollars. Granted, a lot of that spending increase is a result of TARP and the various stimulus bills, but it’s still government spending.

              In any event, what if we’re in the early stages of a second Great Depression and the economy doesn’t fully recover for another eight to ten years? Your insane notions of ever higher spending in the face of depressed revenue will bury us under a mountain of debt that will be impossible to get out of without obliterating the currency. Heck, we’re already almost at that point now as it is.

              1. Multiplier Effect! Now where’s my Nobel?

            4. “Well Krugman would say that focusing on deficit reduction now will just make the deficit problem bigger in the future, since revenues will continue to be low.”

              Well, then you better pray to the heavens that ZIRP continues forever, because if interest rates go back to 2007 levels, we’re hosed.

              1. It may seem counterintuitive, but interest rates going up would actually be the best possible thing that could happen for our country. Yes, there would be significant short term pain, but we would come out in the end far healthier.

                This is exactly how Paul Volcker, the best chairman the Fed has ever had, handled it during the last severe economic downturn, and it worked beautifully.

                I just wish that Volcker had the courage to speak out against these total worthless pieces of shit Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama, because I guarantee you that he knows what they’re doing is entirely political and terribly wrong. We need him now more than ever.

                1. Mike, I think it’s pretty obvious to both of us and anyone else not in complete denial that we can’t get out of this without pain. I think what Bernanke is doing is ultimately suicide, and at the same time, having our interest payments go up to $600 billion a year won’t do much for us either.

                  The problem, as you know, is none of our “leaders” wants to take that PR bullet.

                2. Interesting. Did you read though that Volcker has come out and blamed the deregulation of the financial markets for the crisis?

        2. But apparently it is time to raise taxes on families with incomes over $250,000.

          1. You want to cut the deficit, that’s the best way to do it. What’s the alternative plan? Oh yeah, cut taxes, cut no programs, adding $3 trillion+ to the deficit, but also cut the deficit, somehow.

            1. Only two options are to raise taxes and spend more or cut taxes and spend more? There’s no other options?

              1. In Tony’s world, spending can never be cut, and exponential spending growth forever is always sustainable.

            2. “What’s the alternative plan?”

              Oh, I don’t know. Maybe…sacking 500,000 government workers?

              1. That’s unpossible! The mere mention of doing that will destroy the economy!

            3. This is spoken like a moron who just gets marching orders from his Kos Emails, rather than looking at the numbers.

              Take a look at the STRUCTURAL deficit we have now (let alone the TARP-stimulus-shit-storm deficit we have been running) and tell me how you close it by taxing people earning more than $250,000.

              Or, since you don’t seem capable of doing it yourself, let me tell you: You cannot do it. You’ll make a tiny dent in the deficit. And then next year, when all those earners increase their income by 2% and the structural deficit increases by 4%, what are you going to do? Increase taxes on them again?

        3. Krugman and I….Krugman and I….understand perfectly well…sputter spit….cough! Am I to understand that you have been in discussions with the great one himself?

          Well this changes everything!

          When will the economy have recovered enough for Uncle Paul to have guaranteed himself a lifetime of Sunday chat show appearances upon which he will announce that we can now begin to repay the debt?

          1. Tony: Obama has the highest IQ of any President.

            Don Imus: What’s his IQ?

            Tony: I don’t know, but, I agree with him on everything. Paul Krugman and President Obama are Nobel winners and I agree with everything they say, so in essence I’m a two time Nobel Laureate…a legend in my own mind if you will.

    2. A lot better than Greece. And a lot better than it would have been had it continued on a path towards bankruptcy.

      See two can play that game of the unfalsifiable assumption Tony.

    3. You are so right, it is testable. So, when the global economy starts to pick up again, we will then which country made the better choice. Despite any issues they may now be having, they will be well poised to recover, while those who choose differently will struggle under the burden of their debts or inflation for decades.

      1. This is totally fair. By 2012 the test results should be in and the election should hinge on the results. Unless they’re unfavorable to the President in which case the results need to be squirreled away from the bitter clingers aka voters.

    4. Re: Tony,

      The cool thing is Krugman vs. libertards is testable.

      Yes. See the USSR.

      Or America, post war (WW1, WW2). Both events followed by massive deinvestment by the Fed Gov leading to productive GROWTH, contra Krugman’s ideas (and Keynes.)

      1. Not to mention a four-year national austerity plan (aka rationing) during WW2.

  15. Warner gets extra credit for eschewing the absurd honorific “Dr. Krugman,” which is frequently applied to the pundit you’d least want to have on hand when somebody has a stroke.

    As a holder of that “absurd honorific” myself, my first instinct is to tell you to fuck off for insulting that which I slaved away for 5-6 years, foregoing lucrative employment opportunities, to earn. However, I’ll be diplomatic and assume you don’t realize that an MD is only one type of doctor.

    1. Dr. Tulpa…Doctor Tulpa…Mister Tulpa PHD.

      I’m okay with this.

      1. Just don’t call him Senator M’am. It’s taken.

        1. As someone who hasn’t been able to post much in the last two years because of medical school, I am firmly behind Tulpa in this.

          While I generally only use Dr. in an academic or formal sense (invitations or talking to them as a professor), PhDs have every right to the title and are no less deserving of it than medical doctors.

          If I remember, the title actually came to medical doctors after it was used in academia. Also, medical doctors are really physicians and surgeons, not doctors. Describing them as doctors is just a corruption that apparently has led other people to think that other people with the same title are not deserving of it’s use.

          In a hospital, you wouldn’t use doctor much for non-physicians. PhD/PsyD psychologists generally still use the title, as the main exception, but I’ve never met one that was misleading about it even remotely. It’s kind of a non-issue.

          tl;dr, medical student thinks PhD’s have an equal right to the title Dr.

          1. While people are allowed to be called whatever they wish, “Dr.” is properly reserved for physicians, not PhDs.

    2. My sister works at Harvard Med, has a Ph. D. In her professional life she has worked for architects, lawyers, biologists, doctors, and others. According to her, doctors are THE DUMBEST people she has ever worked with by far, with lawyers a distant second. They are the most capable people as far as picking up a set of instructions and doing what it says, but they are incapable of analytic thought when the instructions don’t actually produce the intended results.

      For that reason alone, I think Krugman DESERVES the title of “Doctor”. Until Tulpa proves otherwise, I think he/she is deserving of it, too.

    3. I’m also curious as to specifically why “Dr. Krugman” is absurd for Krugman.

      To my mind, the fact that somebody attended a pedagogical institution an extra X number of years is not, in and of itself, a reason for greater deference, but Krugman seems to have actually done something useful for some portion of his life – even if he’s just a shill for socialism now.

      I might respect it more if the institutions themselves were more respectable.

      A Philosophiae Doctor is a teacher of the love of wisdom. I wish more of them respected that fact.

  16. That’s a cool Audie Murphy poster.

  17. “Paul Krugman, the Doctor”?

    I thought music was the doctor.

    1. Music is the doctor–of my soul.

  18. Tony, Ireland is doing fine, despite what your favourite socialist rag would like you to believe. The future of Ireland is infinitely better than either of your two socialist poster boys (France and Sweden).

    1. But they did bail out their banks and that’s terrible.

  19. Best closing paragraph I’ve read in a while; I was surprised to see Cavanugh’s name on it (not a commentary on his usual work, I just don’t remember him being such a snarky bastard).

  20. However, I’ll be diplomatic and assume you don’t realize that an MD is only one type of doctor.

    As the holder of a doctorate myself (Juris Doctor), I find I have no need for the honorific, and am happy to leave it to the physicians.

  21. Where do I get that poster. I need that hanging above my desk.

  22. Where do I get that poster. I need that hanging above my desk.

    Yeah, that’s a fucking awesome poster.

  23. Nothing but sophmoric insults and very little (and that is being generous) substantial rebuttal with facts of any kind. If you have actually read Paul Krugman in the last two year, you would realize that he has pretty accurate in his predictions. But, this readership just likes the red meat that authors of these shallow critiques feeds it. Because even being technically right (as author notes in the article), Krugman must be wrong because it just doesn’t ‘feel’ right. Heaven forbid, you offer any facts or figures to prove your point – that takes too much thought.

    1. Nothing but sophmoric insults and very little (and that is being generous) substantial rebuttal with facts of any kind.

    2. Hold on, I’m almost done with my 20 page powerpoint on the economy. What’s the best way to get it to you?

    3. Hah! There are whole cottage industries of people who do nothing but catch Krugman in lies, contradictions of arguments he made previously, logical fallacies, episodes of self-pitying whininess…..etc!

      Decifits mattered when Bush was in office and we dealing with “The conscience of a liberal” after all! Do a google search, you can entertain yourself for hours watching the furry little idiot twist under the scrutiny of rank amateurs who shouldn’t be, yet are able to show that the economist indeed has no clothes!

      Krugman is a fool trying to drain the water from his boat by drilling holes in the bottom!

    4. Uhh, the economy IS the rebuttal. As a man once said, “it’s the economy, stupid!”

    5. If you have actually read Paul Krugman in the last two year, you would realize that he has pretty accurate in his predictions.

      Was that before or after he cheered on the housing bubble and mocked those who warned of it?

    6. Strangely enough, he also can’t explain Japan’s two lost decades.

    7. Krugman can’t possibly be right about anything, because he’s Krugman. Ipso facto. QED.

  24. Warner gets extra credit for eschewing the absurd honorific “Dr. Krugman,” which is frequently applied to the pundit you’d least want to have on hand when somebody has a stroke. “Professor” — which is what you call the piano player in a whorehouse — is the only proper title for the artist formerly known as Paul Krugnuts.

    In the British higher education, only the most senior faculty, those holding a chairmanship, are addressed as “Professor”.

    The honorific “Doctor” is used to refer to refer to more junior faculty holding the rank of lecturer.

    1. The honorific “Doctor” is used to refer to refer[sic] to more junior faculty

      And Time Lords.

  25. In the American press, it has long been the custom to reserve “Dr.” for reference to medical doctors. Not in order to insult chemistry professors, but to avoid reader confusion, since “Prof.” conveys the same honorific information to the average reader and doesn’t imply that Prof. Krugman is going to be prepping for surgery in a few minutes.

    1. I’m not at all sure if it’s ideal to use Dr over Professor (although, he would still hold the Dr. title even if he was fired from an academic position), but it certainly isn’t absurd. Suggesting it is, sort of is.

      1. Can we all at least agree that Barack Obama was a lecturer and not a professor?

    2. PhD’s are not necessarily professors either. Right after you get the degree it’s not uncommon to work as a “post-doc” researcher at a university so as to enhance your chances of landing a better job when you do start to apply for professorships. And that’s not to mention all the PhD’s who go into industry rather than academia.

      It’s also usually clear from the context of the article that Dr. Krugman or Dr. Tulpa or Dr. Teabagger is not a surgeon.

  26. I call my dentist and other doctors “Bud”. Some of them don’t like it, some don’t mind. The ones that don’t mind get my repeat business. I refuse to kowtow to them because they went to college, as if I didn’t.

  27. What seems to be missing in this whole discussion is the fact that in the fractional reserve, fiat monetary system run by banks, the public debt is the basis for the money supply.

    Get rid of the public debt and you shrink the money supply, causing deflation.

    We need to get rid of this monetary system and implement one where there is no such thing as public/government debt.

    Check out the Secret of Oz:

    http://www.secretofoz.com/

    made by the Money Masters guy.

  28. Your post is offensive to whorehouse piano players. Don’t we libertarians need them on our side, too?

  29. What a stupid bunch of morons you all are. Yeah, I think I’ll listen to the Nobel-prize winning economist who actually presents facts and figures, as well as a train of clear logical thought as opposed to armchair “experts”. No wonder everyone calls libertarians retards.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.