Populism

Paul Krugman Attacks "Libertarian Populism," Ignores What Libertarian Populists Actually Say

The New York Times columnist misses the point.

|

Populism!

Paul Krugman has a column today criticizing "libertarian populism." If you're not familiar with that phrase, the main idea is a politics that attacks the alliance between big government and big business—essentially, a small-government alternative to the economy of subsidies, favors, and bailouts. As Krugman's colleague Ross Douthat defined it last month, it's "a strain of thought that moves from the standard grassroots conservative view of Washington as an inherently corrupt realm of special interests and self-dealing elites to a broader skepticism of 'bigness' in all its forms (corporate as well as governmental), that regards the Bush era as an object lesson in everything that can go wrong (at home and abroad) when conservatives set aside this skepticism, and that sees the cause of limited government as a means not only to safeguarding liberty, but to unwinding webs of privilege and rent-seeking and enabling true equality of opportunity as well."

This generally takes the form of wanting to roll back corporate power by rolling back state power. But some libertarian populists are willing to flirt with forms of anti-corporate intervention by the state, as long as the new law is aimed at undoing the effects of prior laws—Timothy Carney, for example, has endorsed the idea of breaking up big banks.

You might be interested in how Krugman approaches his critique. Does he argue that such ideas are not the best alternative to the state-corporate partnership? Perhaps he suggests that the alliance between government and business is, on balance, a good thing? Maybe he denies that the corporate state exists?

Ha! Fooled you. Krugman doesn't discuss the links between government and business at all. Somehow he manages to write a column about libertarian populism without once mentioning the central idea of libertarian populism. Seriously. Go read it and marvel.

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.

279 responses to “Paul Krugman Attacks "Libertarian Populism," Ignores What Libertarian Populists Actually Say

  1. I read the article, and then remembered that I’d promised myself not to read his blatherings any more. Damn you, Walker. Damn you to hell.

    1. my classmate’s step-mother makes $89 hourly on the laptop. She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $17450 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…. http://WWW.CNN13.COM

      1. and what does Krugs say about anonbot?

        1. That he destroys jobs. To get the maximum economic benefit, all spam needs to go through the Post Office.

          1. Well, to be fair, I think unionized government spam servers are also an option.

      2. Damn you, Arthur325, Damn you to hell.

    2. That’s why he’s on our Enemies List. Top 10.

  2. Krugman gives other corrupt, hack political “intellectuals” a bad name.

    1. Do you mean he makes them and the nonsense they espouse look sane by comparison?

  3. You’re not gonna fool me into reading that cockgobbler’s dreck!

    Lalalalalalalala

    1. I read it. And Jesse’s right, it talks about how libertarian populism is evil, but it doesn’t say one thing about libertarian populism. It’s just the standard Krugman hit piece on Republicans and conservatives, with the words “libertarian” and “populism” sprinkled here and there.

      I think he has a Perl script that writes these columns for him.

      1. nah, he is a political commentator. He can’t code. He probably borrows an intern from david brooks.

  4. OT, but important: Idiots just built the early version of the T-100. Get your dogs a trainin’

    1. Krugnet became self-aware on July 30, 2013…In a panic, they tried to pull the plug.

      1. Krugnet fought back.

      2. Austerian cranks. They didn’t consider the huge benefits to be realized following the destruction wrought by Krugnet.

    2. Meet DARPA’s real-world Terminator, Atlas

      /shrug

      1. I see what you did there.

        1. Argh, I will hit refresh next time!

    3. Thank god. I hope our future robot overlords are more cognizant than our current human ones.

      1. Sometimes I think robot overlords would be better, because at least people couldn’t appeal to their base emotions and decisions would be made based on logic.

        1. I’m pretty sure super intelligent robots ruling won’t work out any better than philosopher kings.. sort of like the Simpson’s episode where the super intelligent of Springfield took over.

          Or more specifically, lots of very seemingly logic things are very completely evil (eugenics for instance).

    4. Power is the biggest obstacle to these things. How long would it run on a battery charge? 15 minutes? Or even a fuel cell? Maybe an hour?

      1. I’m sure they have already travalled to an alternate universe where Tony Stark is real and stole his powerplant thingy.

      2. Depends on how efficient it is on converting blood to fuel.

    5. I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.

  5. Strawmen are easier to knock down, after all.

    1. That is why, at least in my experience, progs would rather do battle with an entire army of straw men than with one idea that libertarians actually believe. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost start to think that progs stick to fallacies because fallacies are all they have.

      1. Proggies like fallacies because they feel right on an emotional level.

  6. This article should have been accompanied by a warning label. Next thing you know, you hit the link and then you’re reading a bunch of statist bilge by Marxist apparatchik Comrade Krugman. Quick, somebody get the icepick.

    1. This is stuff is worse than what comes out of the North Korean News service. At least the North Korean stuff is funny.

      If there is anything more boring than humorless, earnest dogmatism, I don’t know what it is.

  7. Go read it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAAA Sucker!

  8. http://hotair.com/archives/201…..years-ago/

    Americans hate journalists even more than they did four years ago. Being a government hack is such a thankless job.

    1. Hah – almost every job type “contributed less” to society now than in 2009. It’s almost as if we’re all getting less and less as time goes on, for some mysterious reason.

      1. I blame the Internet.

    2. Military being ranked above medical doctor, scientist, and engineer…..

      This gives me a sad.

  9. “a strain of thought that moves from the standard grassroots conservative view of Washington as an inherently corrupt realm of special interests and self-dealing elites to a broader skepticism of ‘bigness’ in all its forms (corporate as well as governmental), that regards the Bush era as an object lesson in everything that can go wrong (at home and abroad) when conservatives set aside this skepticism, and that sees the cause of limited government as a means not only to safeguarding liberty, but to unwinding webs of privilege and rent-seeking and enabling true equality of opportunity as well.”

    So basically, “libertarian populism” is redundant. Only if you believe, like Krugman and others of his tribe, that libertarianism is a form of super-GOP, corporation-lovers does the phrase “libertarian populism” make any sense.

    1. I am not understanding how Krugman thinks anyone would read that paragraph and look at it as a bad thing. Serioulsy, what about the ideas expressed in that paragraph does Krugman think is untrue?

      1. He argues it’s just a Republican trick to fool working-class whites into supporting destruction of the social safety net.

        He might just be the most delusional public figure in America. If you changed “Republicans” to “outer space Nazi lizards” his average column would read like the rants of a street person.

        1. I guess the fact that no Republican I know of, not even the evil Rand Paul, is actually advocating for the destruction of the social safety net, is just show how devious Republicans are?

          Liberals have gotten so paranoid and desllutional that public debate has become impossible in this country. Any change in the status quo is not viewed as “destruction” of the entire thing. So you end up with a guy like Paul Ryan, who 50 years ago would have been a Johnson Democrat being considered some sort of radical anarchist out to destroy the entire government.

          You can’t have a debate under those conditions or ever make a decision. Every day really is opposite day for liberals. They are so fond of saying “you have to be an adult to be a part of the conversation” having no idea that they are exactly the kind of people such an axiom properly applied would exclude from the debate.

          1. You misunderstand: to Krugman and his ilk, defunding anything by 10% is tantamount to destroying it, so to them his argument makes perfect sense and is completely realistic. There is no reasoning with these people.

            1. But that’s literally decimating it!!!

              1. No that’s figuratively decimating it because a 10% cut in Washington speak always seems to wind up as an 8% increase.

            2. Hell, most of the time it’s not even defunding it 10%, just reducing the rate of increase by 5.

          2. I debate them only when others are listening, so that when (not if) they tell an obvious lie and refuse to back down when called on it, their mendacity will be on display for those who are still willing to think for themselves.

        2. [Outer space Nazi lizards] argue it’s just a Republican trick to fool working-class whites into supporting destruction of the social safety net.

          [Outer space Nazi lizards] might just be the most delusional public figure[s] in America. If you changed “Republicans” to “[Paul Krugman]” [your] average [post] would read like the rants of a street person.

          You’re right, it works!

    2. Well duh.

      /shreeeeeeek

    3. Well, that is a factually accurate description of me. Although I would say I no longer fit the conservative moniker as my opinions now range from radical to reactionary without ever goin through moderate.

      1. I pretty much dropped any moderation in my viewpoint the day Waco burned and never looked back.

    4. More seriously, Douthat must have really scored some points to have Krugman attacking so vigorously. Can’t have the sheep wandering away to other pastures.

    5. I read Krug writing and all I hear is the teacher in the Peanuts cartoons. (wahwahwhoahwawahawah)

      I mean this is what passes for intellectual rigor?

  10. It’s like every day is opposite day at the White House.

    1. Patrick Krugman: Opposite Day? Hey, I’ve heard of that.

      SpongeBob: You have?

      Patrick Krugman: No, what is it?

      I guess we know now who really lives in a pineapple under the sea.

  11. Paul Krugman has a column today criticizing “libertarian populism.”

    He’s affraid!

    1. Damn you for reminding me that that movie exists!

      1. Because now you have to watch it again and relive its majesty?

        1. Circular firing squads really work!

    2. Don’t insult the Brain Bug like that!

      1. HAHA! Brain bugs have the vagina on their face!

        1. Based on his change in attitude since meeting his leftwing harpy wife, that’s apparently how Krugman writes his columns, too.

  12. Krugman lives in a fantasy world he created entirely in his mind. Seriously. This column was incoherent, illogical, and deceptive. The last part where he tries to prove that libertarianism hurts white people because white people in Ohio are on welfare was bizarre. I pity the reader that could follow his argument and agree with the conclusions.

    Krugman may be losing touch with reality. He needs to seek medical help.

    1. Maybe him and Andrew Sullivan can share a room at the asylum.

      The depressing thing is that he is just a reflection of his readers. Progs in general are creating a fantasy world and losing touch with reality. None of their ideas work and only act to produce misery. But so much of their personal identity is invested in them, they can’t face this reality. So they build a fantasy world. It is only a matter of time before some of the more deranged ones become dangerous.

      1. What happened to Sully? Ever since he left The Atlantic, nobody links to him anymore. Is there nobody left who is intersted in watching him punch up on Sarah Palin’s mentally disabled child?

        1. He still shills on TV. I think he is at the Beast now. But I am not sure. And he is still obsessed with Sarah Palin’s vagina. He is a very sad, sick man.

          1. There are worse things to be obsessed with.

            1. True. But not when you are bald, neurotic middle aged gay man with a serious case of self loathing.

    2. He needs to seek medical help.

      You would deny us more mockworthy columns?

      Monster!!!

      1. Don’t worry, Matt Yglesias, E.J. Dionne, and Ezra Klein are more than willing to pick up the slack.

        1. I’m not sure that they will be sufficiently prolific for my needs. The others you mentioned will be far too busy competing in “Most Punchable Face” contests!

          (sotto voce….my money is on Dionne)

          1. Dionne in a landslide! His face us what I pictured as Wesley Mouch when reading Atlas Shrugged.

        2. Oh did anyone see it where MattY said the only reason Bobby Jindal is considered smart is because he’s an Indian?

          http://twitchy.com/2013/06/18/…..reotyping/

          1. For the record, now that I know more about Jindal’s life it’s clear that he’s a very smart man who just says lots of very dumb stuff.?
            Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 18, 2013

            Project much*?

            *For the record I’m not saying that I think Matt Yglesias is a “very smart man who says a lot of dumb stuff,” but he probably thinks he’s very smart, and he definitely says a lot of dumb stuff. In reality, he’s a very dumb man who says a lot of dumb stuff. And has a very punchable face.

    3. Most of his readers don’t need to follow his argument to agree with his conclusions.

      1. Following the argument doesn’t matter. Only how it makes them feel matters.

    4. Krugman may be losing touch with reality.

      What do you mean by using the words “may be”? Krugabe wouldn’t know reality if it hit him with a 2×6 over the skull.

    5. The worst part is that, no matter how incoherent or ridiculous his writing, he still gets people in the comments fawning over how right and brilliant he is.

      1. He won a Nobel Prize! And can any of you neoconfederates tell me just how many Nobel Prizes Mises won?

        Ergo Krugman possesses a stronger understanding of economics than Mises. QED. Racists. Neoconfederates.

        1. Hey, I’m pretty sure the war-loving cosmotarian liberaltarians hate Krugman too!

        2. That’s right! And MLK and Barack Obama are tied in number of peace prizes! Clearly the two are equivalent as peace promoters!

      2. The same people that gave Barrack Obama a Nobel prize for peace apparently gave him his for economics.

        1. Yasser Arafat.

          That is all.

          1. Al Gore

    6. The human mind is a powerful thing. It can take what is, objectively speaking, incoherent drivel and draw the necessary connections so that it makes sense.

    7. There’s no more denying it: Krugman is a dingleberry.

      1. Just for fun and becasue it brought me to silent tears of joy in my miserable corporate cube….

        dingleberry
        1: A delinquent partial turd which grasps anal shrubery causing brownish crust to accumulate in ones boxers. My wife tells me that I need to wipe my ass better because my dingleberries are making my underware a nasty mess, however I like the idea of her down in the basement doing laundry and cleaning up my foul nasty underware.

        2:n. a Klingon near Uranus Spock needed to tear off a piece of toilet paper for his next mission – elimination of the dingleberry orbiting the black hole.

        3:A smallish, semi-dry, extraordinarily tenacious remnant of fecal matter which, when unwittingly rolled into a mixture with toilet paper lint by the action of wiping, becomes almost irremovably entangled among ones anal hair, a situationality exacerbated by the vigorous chafing and friction between the buttocks and most commonly remedied by the sad and almost entirely unavoidable remedy of plucking out at its root the individual hair to which each dingleberry is conjoined. Of related interest, dingleberries are often noted as having the vague odor of undigested corn or peanuts.
        *Plink* Ouch! Son of a bitch, that hurt!

    8. EDG, he has fans. Justin Beiber-like fans. As a Montrealer I spotted this gem from a comment that got 314 thumbs up:

      “I don’t understand why the myth of what constitutes the wealth of nations isn’t refuted by what has happened here in Quebec in the last 50 years. Quebec’s quiet revolution saw the flight of of head offices of most Canadian head offices from Montreal to the lower tax havens of Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary. Along with the corporations the stock exchange and the upper echelons of Canadian Moneyed elite as their top corporate functionaries left for more business friendly climes..
      Quebec went from the lowest taxed and least regulated corporate environments to one of the highest with the devastating result of having a better educated, healthier, wealthier and better informed population than it did when it was a socially conservative and business libertarian society. It is America’s diversity and natural resources that have made it the wealthiest country on the planet. It is having mothers that were literate and empowered and past on that legacy that was the real wealth.”

      God. Dammit.

      I’ll just pick on the fact that he neglects to tell you, by all measures, Quebec is one of the worst performing regions in North America. It also doesn’t regard civil liberties with its oppressive language laws and has a corrupt power structure unrivaled except for perhaps southern states.

      Fuck him and statist ilk.

      1. Actually, I need to appeal to my betters here. The argument according to people quoted above goes something like “well, things were bad under laissez-faire so we needed social-democracy. Now look at us!”

        The question is, how do we know today how bad things really were then? It’s the key to unlocking how we put an end to contemporary welfare/entitlements. If they keep saying stuff like “we were unhealthy and uneducated before universal care” then it’s easy to stop anyone who suspects maybe that wasn’t the entire picture.

        And if liberals/progressives then are anything like they are today, then we can assume there was a whole lot of appeals to emotions – probably for a small fraction of a population.

        Thoughts?

        1. All flavors of leftism are replacement religions for people that lost faith in god but still want the religious experience. So yes, the appeals were always emotional with a pseudo-science layer on top.

        2. That’s part of the problem – you cannot argue with people on a purely emotional level in an historical context.

          History is entirely too complex – because you have the human paradoxes like slave owners producing the freest country in the world.

          Because of that – anyone who wants to believe things were worse off can find enough evidence to prove that to themselves.

          The only real evidence should be that the freedom we used to have got us here – the richest, freest, with best medical care, etc, etc, etc country on the Earth.

          Unlikely that by trading that in to be more like Europe will help us maintain or increase that trend in the future.

          But the only way to really argue history, or philosophy, or really anything nuanced and complex is for the other person to be debating with you in full fait

          1. … with you in full faith to get to an answer – not simply to score political points.

            Because with the vastness of history and the complexity and paradoxes of humans – anyone can cherry pick too easily.

            Even stupid people can read the right things and cherry pick to the point they appear like they know history, but they only know enough facts to make what they wanted to believe any way seem plausible.

            Depressing…

      2. That is truly amazing. Quebec is a motherfucking shithole, and I can’t imagine anyone thinking that it is successful in almost any respect. I say this as someone who lived in Montreal as well.

        I just…I don’t even know what to say. That is so far beyond delusional it’s hard for me to express. Or, it was written by someone who has absolutely no idea how much nicer it is outside a socialist pile of shit.

      3. Riiiight. Quebec is so great they’d rather play ice hockey in a 110-degree desert.

        1. See, they’re gettin’ a bunch of old geezers down there from the northeast. And what do you think those old geezers really miss in Arizona?

  13. Any idiot can use the dictionary meanings of words. Krugabe is a renowned scholar.

  14. There is now higher compliment than to be criticized by a Soviet apparatchik like Krugman.

  15. I’m beginning to think that competitive corporatism as it stands now really is the only reasonable alternative to the fascist corporatism new-school leftists want and the straight-up socialism old-school leftists want. Competitive corporatists still compete nominally, with politicians pandering to the best connected/ best lucred among them. In the fascistic model, private macro-control is more or less illusory. In the competitive model, industrial insiders can buy off the regulatory bureaucrats; in the fascistic model the bureaucrats are the corporations.

    1. I don’t mean “reasonable” normatively, either.

  16. Somehow he manages to write a column about libertarian populism without once mentioning the central idea of libertarian populism. Seriously. Go read it and marvel.

    I once pushed a finger into an operating table fan. I’m not falling for that one again!

    1. What can I say? Some of us are sadists.

    2. Seriously. Go read it and marvel.

      Instructions unclear, got penis caught in ceiling fan. Would not recommend.

  17. Paul Krugman, meet Nancy Pelosi. You two have a lot in common.

  18. Which brings us back to why libertarian populism is, as I said, bunk. You could, I suppose, argue that destroying the safety net is a libertarian act ? maybe freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.

    Which would imply that not having a safety net = having nothing, which implies that the safety net = everything. What an inspirational vision. Forget the idea of building wealth in your lifetime. Settle for being poor and cared for. It’s the new American dream, apparently.

    Anyway, I’m surprised that there’s so much anti-libertarian material flying around lately. It used to be I had to actually make an effort to consume libertarian media. If libertarians came up, it was as if in reference to some fringe group of ignored people. Now, I have mainstream elites writing earnest articles, warning me of its horribleness. I wonder what’s up.

    1. This is a man tending his flock.

      1. Yep.

    2. I am so ashamed.

    3. I wonder what’s up.

      The writing on the wall?

      I think libertarianism will soon have its day. It may end up being another flash in the pan movement like the Tea Party, but it’s coming.

      The establishment is circling the wagons. (both Teams)

    4. You could, I suppose, argue that destroying the safety net is a libertarian act

      it’s positively Obama-esque – try to take an argument that no one is actually making, rejecting some “false choice” that has zero people on at least one of the sides.

      1. You could, I suppose, argue that destroying the safety net is a libertarian act

        To be fair, I don’t see this as a bad thing.

        1. The thing is that while most (probably all) libertarians would like to see the safety net torn down over time very very few think it is a task which could, or even should be accomplished overnight.

          Basically it is going to take a generation and maybe 2 before we could wind down the government paid for safety nets and replace them with free market solutions

          1. Agreed – but if libertarians even got that deal in writing – it better have a hard deadline with meaningful enforcement mechanism and inability to repeal…

            Something like an Amendment which says – reduce all welfare, medicare….etc…etc…etc to zero by Dec 31 2113. Progress will be shown by the following milestones: (at least a milestone every 5 years with measurable movement and for the last 20 years milestones every year).

            Any delay or missed milestones will result in the dismissal (within 90 days – to allow special elections) of all current legislators and president/vice president – all of whom will be barred from ever seeking office again or ever being able to purchase a firearm nor vote in federal elections (if something like no-fly list still exits – or better – GITMO – send ’em there) – special elections will be held to replace those fired.

            This bill also sets up a specialized police force, small, but very skilled, like the secret service, who’s only job it is to ensure, if needed, that special elections will take place and ensure those who need to vacate do.

            Of course when simple language like “congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of…the press” is construed by too many “legal scholars” and legislators to imply you can license the “press” – it would likely fail.

            I’m not sure there is a true generational task the US could accomplish – assuming the current levels of critical thinking continue.

            Anarchy? 🙂

      2. Don’t forget about having an “open debate” as long as his definitions of terms and prior assumptions are used.

      3. I’m making the argument to end the safety net. You aren’t entitled to the fruits of others’ labor.

        1. But you’re not, I don’t think. You want the safety net to be created by the voluntary charitable actions of individuals and private organizations, right?

          Who is saying we should abolish welfare and make private charity ILLEGAL? Because that’s what it takes to destroy the safety net.

  19. Somehow he manages to write a column about libertarian populism without once mentioning the central idea of libertarian populism. Seriously. Go read it and marvel.

    “Hey, smell this, I think it’s gone bad!”

    1. Because if the government does not provide a safety net, there will be no safety net at all. No voluntary charity, no voluntary community groups, no families voluntarily helping each other out. No nothing. Why? Because without coercion, no one would ever voluntarily help another human being.

      That little bit of projection shows just how despicable progressives are.

      1. That was supposed to be a stand alone comment, not a reply. Whoops.

      2. Because if the government does not provide a safety net, there will be no safety net at all. No voluntary charity, no voluntary community groups, no families voluntarily helping each other out. No nothing. Why? Because without coercion, no one would ever voluntarily help another human being.

        I hear this fallacy a lot. My response has become a simple apathetic “so?”

        1. Because if the government does not provide a safety net, there will be no safety net at all. No voluntary charity, no voluntary community groups, no families voluntarily helping each other out. No nothing. Why? Because without coercion, no one would ever voluntarily help another human being.

          You forgot how even though human beings are evil, unless coerced, they will vote for people who will force them to be better than they are.

          “I don’t believe in charity but I am going to vote for this guy who will make me give charity”

          1. “I don’t believe in charity but I am going to vote for this guy who will make me everyone give charity”

            ftfy

            You see it’s only fair if everyone participates. That’s what collectivism is all about. Some people voluntarily working towards a common goal is abhorrent because the gains and losses are not spread out fairly among the entire collective. That’s the evil of capitalism. It’s not egalitarian.

      3. i.e. Paul Krugman wouldn’t.

        1. What’s the point of contributing to a charity if everyone else doesn’t contribute as well? That’s not very fair. I mean, why should I contribute while my neighbors spends the money on themselves? That’s not very fair. No, all charity should be funded by taxation. Taking money away by coercion is the only fair way to do things.

          1. Basically, Progs just seem to really like coercion. They love forced collective action (eg, taxes, unions) while despising any voluntary collective action (eg, corporations).

            1. Basically, Progs just seem to really like coercion.

              Yup. That’s why they have such a deep hatred of libertarians. Libertarians object to using force except in response to force. Proggies think it’s OK to initiate force as long as it’s their team against someone they don’t like. They honestly believe that libertarians, by objecting to the initiation of force, are initiating force.

            2. Their coercion even goes so far as to force volunteerism. My kid, who does a lot of volunteering and helps in the community, was told that unless he volunteered for the stuff they liked, he was not getting the credit he needed to graduate high school.

              This might all be a precursor to that volunteer army Obama talked about back in the early days of his reign. It is all about forcing beahvior they want on the lemmings. Giving the serfs freedom is a dangerous thing to the progressive.

              1. “You can volunteer as long as you do so from a list of our choosing.”

          2. Benevolence by proxy is what I call it.

          3. Chelsea Hadler made this argument once.
            CH: “I’d be happy to pay more in taxes.”
            People with Brains: “Go ahead, you are welcome to”
            CH: “No! It’s called passing a law!”
            PwB: “Shut up C! Put your money where your mouth is.”

            1. “Put your money where your mouth is”

              So, she should wrap it around the John’s cock?

      4. Reason should post a single weekly column rehashing mutual aid societies and charity hospitals/free clinics for the low-info/newbie libertarians who aren’t counted among the commentariat.

        As an added bonus, it could replace John Stossel or Steve Carbontax.

  20. I did learn that Libertarian Populists can only be white people, preferrably well-off white people. I did learn that. Thanks Paul.

    1. And, they have to be disgruntled Republicans, apparently. No disappointed hope-and-changey Obama fans allowed.

    2. Yeah, poor white people are clearly brainwashed by capitalist pigs, using bastardized free $peech, to vote against their self interest (i.e. money for nothin’ and chick’s abortions for free). Because everyone knows that if you’re poor the only thing you desire is government dough and destruction of those monocled rich fucks, not a healthy economy to better yourself and family.

      However, if you are wealthy and vote against your self interest, you’re a noble patriot.

  21. Enter libertarian populism. The idea here is that there exists a pool of disaffected working-class white voters who failed to turn out last year but can be mobilized again with the right kind of conservative economic program ? and that this remobilization can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes.

    No homo RACIST.

    1. Working class white just need to get with the program and do what their progressive white betters tell them to do just like the blacks have. That is Krugman’s argument in a nutshell. The Democrats have spent the last 8 years telling working class whites to go fuck themselves and check their privilege while they are at it. But Krugman is shocked they would ever consider voting for those evil libertarians.

      1. Working class people don’t understand that the Republicans, by wanting to allow the rich to keep their own money, hate the poor. They don’t understand that the best and surest way to increase employment is to tax more money away from employers. The only excuse employers have for not creating jobs or giving out raises is their obscene obsession with profits. If we teach them a lesson and tax those profits away, then they’ll wise up and create more jobs. See? It makes perfect sense.

        1. The only excuse employers have for not creating jobs or giving out raises is their obscene obsession with profits.

          You attempt to make light, sarc. I had several people at CNN tell me that very thing the other day.

          It has gotten to the point that caricature doesn’t work.

        2. I put this quote on some business mailings recently.

          By virtue of exchange, one man’s prosperity is beneficial to all others.

          Bastiat understood this simple fact over 100 years ago. How in the fuck can people be so stupid?

          1. How in the fuck can people be so stupid?

            Because they don’t think. They emote. On an emotional level voluntary exchange is not fair because the other person profits off of you. So what if you too are better off. That doesn’t matter. The other person profited. Off you. That’s tantamount to stealing. And if they profit off of a bunch of people they get rich. From stealing. See? It makes sense as long as you don’t think about it.

            1. The key word here is profit. The progressives hate it, with absolute passion, unless they are the ones making the profit. When I once pointed out to one of them progressive types that based on the logic behind his hate of profit, that our employer should then really pay him as little as possible – the employer felt like he was not getting his money’s worth – he freaked out.

              Profit is only evil if others make it.

              1. Want another fun way to make a proggy head explode? Next time they go on about how bad the trade deficit is, ask them about their own personal trade deficit. Would they rather export more than they import? Would they be richer if they exported their television and imported a clock radio? It’s the same reasoning.
                Ask them about their trade deficit with the grocery store. All they do is import goods from the store. They never export goods to the grocery story. If on a personal level you’re richer if you import more than you export, why as a nation are we poorer if we do the same thing?

                1. Not a good example, because a fallacy of composition based on this is what creates the illusion that a positive balance of trade is a good thing. The proggy’s going to say, of course on an aggregate basis I’m better off if I export more than I import, because that means I’m saving money. Everyone is better off saving money, so if everyone made more money than they spent, everyone would be better off. Ultimately that’s mercantilism, an idea that’s hard to shake.

                  1. Except that money is not wealth. That’s the underlying fallacy behind merchantilism.

  22. Go read it and marvel.

    I will not be tricked into reading shit that might make me want to kill myself. Thanks for trying though.

  23. If you changed “Republicans” to “outer space Nazi lizards” his average column would read like the rants of a street person.

    Republicans are real.

    Horribly, horribly real.

    1. They are real and they are out there. And they want to cut the growth of spending in half!!!

      1. And they want to cut the growth of spending in half!!!

        That’s half too little.

      2. See how bad the Republicans are. They want to cut the growth in GDP.

  24. Oh, and FUCK KRUGMAN!

  25. Krugman’s motto:

    If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

    1. baffle them with bullshit.

      ftfy.

  26. Paul Krugman is a clock that has managed to stop on a time of day that it will never be again.

    1. 13 O’clock?
      http://m.youtube.com/index?&de…..VAZAc0Uwds

    2. He’s a daily calendar open to February 30.

      1. Lousy Smarch weather!

    3. I misread “clock” as “cock”, and was wondering why you didn’t just call him a “dick” like we all would.

  27. OT: Browns fan let down by team one last time, but not the way he wanted

    His wish of having the football players serve as pallbearers did not come true Tuesday. The team instead gave him a jersey.

    (SCREW YOU! IT’S BETTER THAN READING KRUGMAN!)

    1. Wow, they knew about the situation and still let the guy down. That’s hilarious.

      1. Hey, if they came through in the clutch, they wouldn’t be the Browns.

      2. Very meta.

    2. You’re worse than Hitler. At least start a circumcision or artisinal mayonnaise thread. Let’s not make this the new hill to die on.

      1. You’re worse than Hitler

        Hey, I don’t have to take that! I get enough of that at home!

      2. You know who else was worse than Hitler?

        1. Krugman?

        2. Activia?

        3. Art Modell?

      3. I was going to say that you can’t start a circumcision thread unless Nikki is here, but using the word circumcisions seems to have summoned her to the thread. Artisanal mayo failed to bring Sloop to the yard.

        1. Doesn’t matter, it’s pus.

    3. Sooo, who here likes The Pixies?

  28. So, what is Krugman saying here? That the only reason working class voters would be attracted to libertarian ideas, especially those concerning how to deal with the ties between big business and big government, instead of socialist ideas about the same is because of — false conscience?

    Okay now, what is the track record of those social democrats like Paul Krugman on that very score? He supports the Federal Reserve system created by bankers to socialize their losses during downturns, he supported the bailout which was built on top of that system to do the very same when its instrumentation failed, he supports the Keynesian scheme that turns the Cantillon Effect on its head for the ‘positive’ purpose of solving the sticky wage problem by devaluing wages, so what the fuck does he have to offer the white working class of whom he is trolling here? It would be a supreme act of false conscience to not be hostile to the things Krugman and Frum support.

    1. What he is saying is “yeah sure corruption is wrong and needs to be stopped, but only progs can be trusted to deal with it.”

      It is really just another “we need to get the right people in charge to make this work” argument. Krugman’s point seems to be that because the government is fucking up so badly and there is so much corruption, people might decide that government isn’t such a good idea rather than just agree to put a new set of progs in charge to fix things.

  29. Mr. Trende’s analysis basically imagines a world in which white turnout rebounds to 2008 levels but nonwhite turnout doesn’t, and it’s hard to see why that makes sense.

    Is it? I don’t think it’s all that hard…

    1. Which is why Dens will have to run a woman as their next presidential candidate. Their ideas fail, and so they have to rely on “firsts” to mobilize voters. A woman in 2016, an Hispanic in 2020, a gay in 2024, etc.

      1. Can we just have a black hispanic gay woman, and get them all over with at once?

      2. Just so.

      3. a gay in 2024

        Nope. Dems already squared that away in the 1850s. I personally will not allow them to play that card again. Team gay clearly beat all racial minorities, Catholics, and women in the race to the White House. Suck it everyone besides WASP heteronormative males, Miss Nancy was there first.

        On the same note, fuck Andrew Sullivan for that first gay president bullshit, fuck him right in the ear.

        1. King became ill in 1853 and died shortly of tuberculosis after Pierce’s inauguration, four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan described him as “among the best, the purest and most consistent public men I have known.”[65] The two men’s nieces destroyed their uncles’ correspondence, but the length and intimacy of surviving letters illustrate “the affection of a special friendship”.

          Well then.

        2. what is the minority hierarchy? I mean which one sits on top of the pyramid of grievance?

          1. I dunno, ask a man to rank all of God’s creation and he’ll put humans at the top because we’re the most intelligent. Ask a giraffe to do the same and he’ll put giraffes at the top because they have the longest neck.

            I think you have to double or triple dip to really get to the top of the pyramid of grievance. I’d put money on a transgendered lesbian half-Jew/half-black athiest. The intersectionality would just be epic.

            1. Throw in albino mulatto and we got a winner.

              1. Well we’ve already got a Jewlatto in there. I suppose we could sprinkle on some albinism, maybe a stutter or some OCD? Some homelessness or coming from a working class background in a once thriving manufacturing town that’s now dead?

                1. For the love of god slow down…..I’m losing track of who’s who! Okay so Lincoln was the first black president?

          2. Niggers spics fags Muslims crackers wops kikes Chinks

            It’s simple and linear 1-D.

            1. Squirrels ate my “greater than” signs.

            2. You forgot women! In Old Man With Candy Land women are extra oppressed.

              1. Wrong game….Chutes and Ladders….only in this version the only ladder women players ever land on bumps up against a glass ceiling!

              2. Aw, jesse, you’re just pissed off because you came in third.

                1. Actually I’m a little sad that I’m not further down the list. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the forward march toward falling right off the end of that list; just like the Irish did (but less drunken and addicted to potatoes)

                  1. You slid to the left when the marriage thing became the Cause du jour.

                    I was amused at a radio ad running clips of Obama bloviating about how equality is a moral imperative and why we need to celebrate gay marriage. Somehow, they forgot to run clips of him from a couple years ago opposing it…

                    1. Eh, I’d argue that my stance on gay marriage wasn’t strictly “leftist,” but I get where you’re coming from.

                      Dick Cheney was better on gay issues than Obama. It should be printed thousands of time on newspaper rolled up, and used to beat liberals whenever they get excited about Obama deigning to offer his support (less than a week after NC passed their amendment 1).

                    2. Sorry, I didn’t mean “left” politically, I meant “left” on my slur list.

  30. I won’t watch The Hobbit, I won’t listen to Andrea Bocelli, AND I WON’T READ KRUGMAN!

    1. “In a world where the only options available to the last man on earth – Hash Brown – are: to see The Hobbit, listen to Andrea Bocelli sing or read Paul Krugman, Hash Brown would rather take his own life.”

    2. It wasn’t that bad for late 70s Britainomation.

      1. I love rotoscoping.

  31. Go read it and marvel.

    I was planning on destroying those brain cells in a more pleasant fashion later today.

    1. You have others.

      1. That really isn’t evident.

    2. Is this like the story about the lion and the gazelle on the plains of Africa? Where one wakes up and knows that unless they are fast they are going to be food, and the other wakes up and knows unless they are fast enough they won’t eat. The whole natural selection thing that makes the survivors the best of the best?

      That logic also works for alcohol and brain cells. Drink a lot and you will get smarter because the slow cells will get killed.

      1. I am going to apply that logic, repeatedly. For. The. Rest. Of. My. Life.

        Thanks!

    3. I’ve been proofreading & copy editing from a friend whose fiction he says was heavily influenced by Tolkein. With that to judge by, no way am I going to put up with such a writing style, even if the content was that interesting to me, which it probably would be only moderately.

      1. It’s like I’ve no interest in reading stuff by James Joyce, because of the knowledge that Shea & Wilson’s style came from there, most starkly displayed in Illuminatus!. Much as I loved Bob & Bob both personally & content-wise, it’s obvious why Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum cleaned their clocks.

        And no matter how much Damon Lindelof’s style may have been influenced by Stephen King, I just find the latter too depressing to do more research into the origins of Lost, especially now that I’ve learned it really goes back to Arthur C. Doyle. Damon’s father’s precis of King novels, and the movies, are more interesting than King’s writings themselves.

  32. Krugman doesn’t discuss the links between government and business at all. Somehow he manages to write a column about libertarian populism without once mentioning the central idea of libertarian populism.

    Also, this is purposeful. The whole point of his column, which starts out, “Have you heard about “libertarian populism” yet? If not, you will,” is to let NYT readers know what it is before they have a chance to hear about it elsewhere. Just in case they ever had a chance to hear what it actually was, Krugman is there to make sure they already have some bizarro-world version of it in their heads that can be easily dismissed.

    1. Yes. And he wants them to understand what the party approved talking points are regarding this issue. You would think the progs would get tired of being drones.

    2. It’s actually quite masterfully diabolical when you think about it like that.

      1. Some of these retards can be quite cunning.

  33. I’m hungover and refuse to read Kruggy, so I’ll just say this: Krugman, like all of the other statist, tyrannical trash, function according to the principle that it is morally correct for one man to live at the expense of another. Kruggers argues that it is right for the wealthy to be coerced into paying more because they have more. Based on that principle, Krugabe could throw his man-purse around some strapping young man’s neck if Krugodug’s little arms are too full with his equally fat housecat.

    Paul Krugman should give me $2.4 million of his $2.5 million net worth. He has it, he doesn’t deserve it, and I really need it.

  34. Wow, there’s some really intense Krugman hate here.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t truck with his neo-Keynesianism, but Krugman is the least of our problems. He’s an economist who believes in a lot of what we believe in (he’s written against rent control, the ‘living wage’ movement, farm and corporate subsidies and for free trade for example) but parts with us in some areas because he’s basically become a paid gun for the Democrats. There’s lots worse leftwing types out there. I don’t see him as any worse, or any better than someone like Thomas Sowell, another economist who basically sold himself to the other side to make a buck.

    1. I don’t see him as any worse, or any better than someone like Thomas Sowell, another economist who basically sold himself to the other side to make a buck.

      While I thought the comparison to Tony earlier was a little unfair, I now believe that it was really unfair. Even Tony isn’t this stupid, is he?

      Thomas Sowell is an intellectual giant. He has written books on a diverse number of subjects including baseball and “late talking children”.

      Your comparing him with Krugabee outs you as a complete and utter imbecile.

      1. An intellectual giant? Sowell has some interesting work, but not nearly as accomplished as Krugman in the field of economics (pretty much all of Krugman’s accomplishments in that field are light years from his Democratic shilling in his popular work).

        But Sowell is just as bit of a shill for his team as Krugman is for his, and more importantly for us he’s just as likely to go off the libertarian ranch (for example, his opposition to immigration reform where he explicitly criticizes “doctrinaire libertarians” or his support for the Bush wiretapping and detainee programs).

        1. Sowell rooting for his Team:

          Yet what are we preoccupied with or outraged about? Whether the American government should intercept the phone calls of these cutthroats to people in the United States.

          That question has been sanitized in the mainstream media by asking whether the government should be engaged in “domestic wiretapping,” just as the terrorists themselves have been sanitized into “militants” or “insurgents.”

          The way the question is posed by many in the media and in politics, you would think our intelligence agencies were listening in on you talking on the phone to your aunt Mabel.

          Be serious! There are more than a quarter of a billion people in the United States. Intelligence agencies have neither the manpower, the time, the money, nor the interest to listen in on you and your aunt Mabel.

          Lawyers may differ on fine legal points about the Constitutional powers of the commander in chief during wartime versus the oversight powers of the courts. But, a Supreme Court Justice once pointed out that the Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.

          The Constitution was meant for us to live under, not be paralyzed by, in the face of death.

          1. More Sowell cheerleading:

            The more doctrinaire libertarians see the benefits of free international trade in goods, and extend the same reasoning to free international movement of people. But goods do not bring a culture with them. Nor do they give birth to other goods to perpetuate that culture.

            1. Huh, that’s funny, I don’t see any mention of Republicans in there.

              You do realize that libertarians have vastly differing views on a multitude of issues and that none of those views automatically labels us as Republicans (or Democrats) right?

              1. You’re wasting your time D.

              2. My point is that Sowell likely knows better regarding immigration and likely knows that wiretapping without warrants and indefinite detention at the whim of the Executive, etc., are not good things, but when his side wanted to hear that he provided it.

              3. I don’t see any mention of Republicans in there

                Proof that it’s Tony.

    2. I don’t see him as any worse, or any better than someone like Thomas Sowell

      As a reminder, the best way to burn someone at the stake is to start with a small pile of kindling placed at the feet. Too much wood and too big a fire and the victim will asphyxiate quickly.

    3. Did you really compare Krugman to Sowell? You go too far, sir! Too far indeed!

      1. He’s a troll. Ask him about the Republican plan to prevent aborting single-celled organisms.

        1. He’s not a troll, but I’m now convinced he really isn’t that bright.

          1. I’m puzzled as to why you find them not comparable. Praise for warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention and opposition to the free flow of peoples are pretty far at odds with conventional libertarian thinking, no?

            1. …at odds with conventional libertarian thinking, no?

              You know, given this writing style I wonder if this is our old buddy MNG?

              1. You guys fucking slay me. Sowell is a piss poor libertarian, Bo Cara comes in with proof of it, and all you can do is whine about him being MNG in some new guise?

    4. The difference, of course, is that Krugman is pushing the party line of statist crypto-authoritarian corruptocrats (with the occasional dust-in-the-eyes piece on rent control or whatever, which you fell for).

      Sowell has done no such thing.

      But other than that, sure, no diff.

      1. RC, nice to see you back!

        Hope that new job isn’t working you too hard.

      2. Well, I wouldn’t say the guy is exactly immaculate on that score. From a recent column, can you spot where he goes astray?

        If the things that the left wants to control ? institutions and government policy ? are not the most important factors in the world’s problems, then what role is there for the left?

        What if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a more positive difference than the bright new government “solutions” that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking “the root causes of crime” is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals?

        Sounds like an advocate of costly government solutions to me.

        1. What if he’s right about the effectiveness on the crime rate? For us that doesn’t matter, but its hard to say he’s disingenous, which is what Bo Cara is arguing by equating Krugman and Sowell.

        2. The thing is he’s right in that seeking the root causes of crime isn’t going to be as effective as just locking up criminals.

          That doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwile though.

          1. I think the freakeconomics guys analysis was that increased prison sentences were responsible a large percentage of the decrease in crime since the 90’s (arbortion legalization they found to be 25% or so). I think it was responsible for 50% of the crime drop… but I could be off…

            As noted – this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at root causes nor do the ends necessarily justify the means – but it works.

            1. The abortion thing has been discredited. Years ago.

      3. Yes, because nothing about praise for warrantless wiretapping and how the Constitution should not get in the way of the WOT indicates “statist crypto-authoritarian”…

    5. Do you honestly think you’re fooling anyone into thinking you’re Libertarian?

      1. Do you?

    6. I don’t agree with Thomas Sowell on everything, but equating him with Paul Krugman is just stupid. Thomas Sowell was one of the first writers/thinkers to push me toward libertarianism. The only way anyone could say the same thing about Krugman is if they found his arguments so idiotic that it convinced them that libertarians must be right if he spent so much time bashing them.

      1. This is not to defend Krugman. He can’t be squared with libertarianism because he is a believer in central planning at the macroeconomic level. But Sowell goes as far off the ranch as he does when his side wants him to.

        1. I think the issue here is you’re equating S & K based upon the mistaken belief that both disagree with L’s to the same degree on just a couple of different topics.

          However, just because S wrote something that is 180 degrees off L’s and K did as well, doesn’t mean they are both as stupid.

          & K doesn’t disagree with L on just a couple of topics either – he disagrees with L’s on all topics – but he also disagrees that humans should be allowed to make their own way in the world should it ever disagree with his version of how things should be.

          So in fact, he really just loathes humans in general and firmly believes they cannot be trusted with even the most basic of decisions in their own lives without him and his benevolent malicious controllers regulating it, taxing it, killing it, or licensing it.

          & if you want to know why K hates humans? It’s because he’s better than you – that’s why.

  35. I don’t have the strength to read this today. And I certainly don’t have the strength to read his comments. I think I’ll just smoke some PCP and punch myself in the balls instead.

    1. I hate to say it, but maybe you should squat more.

      1. Goddammit, Nikki. You’re the worst.

      2. That does make the ball punching a bit easier.

    2. I thought you had minions for your testicular-smiting activities.

    3. If you smoke some PCP you should also jump out of a fourth floor, run away with your shin bones jutting out, get shot several times, but not be felled, and then throw a car at pursuing police. It’s been a relatively slow news day*, and I yearn for the days when 24 hour news meant presidential blowjobs and PCP users throwing automobiles.

      1. To Warty, a punch is like a loving caress. He’s really talking about taking a dissociative and masturbating. That’s the closest he ever gets to a consensual sexual experience with a stranger.

        1. ‘consensual’ – yeah, right.

  36. Seriously. Go read it and marvel.

    I’ll save it for the next time I need to induce vomiting. Or if I decide to try bolemia as a weight loss strategy.

  37. I think I’ll just smoke some PCP and punch myself in the balls instead.

    Hang a 45lb plate from the ceiling with a length of chain and let it swing into your forehead. I think you’ll find the effect quite similar to reading Krugabe’s “analysis”.

  38. Somehow he manages to write a column about libertarian populism without once mentioning the central idea of libertarian populism.

    Hm, lessee, Jesse:

    Enter libertarian populism. The idea here is that there exists a pool of disaffected working-class white voters who failed to turn out last year but can be mobilized again with the right kind of conservative economic program ? and that this remobilization can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes.

    So it’s not that he doesn’t mention it, just that he disagrees with you what it is. Seems Krugman considers libertarian populism to be a political calcul’n, while you consider it to be an ideology or sub-ideology. Surely the term is vague & broad enough to admit of both your meanings, and probably many more. In fact if someone had asked me out of the blue what “libertarian populism” meant, I’d’ve probably come up with something closer to what Krugman wrote than what you wrote, although I can see either as being applicable.

    1. Except that he doesn’t at all elaborate on what exactly he means when he says “the right kind of conservative economic program.”

      1. He doesn’t have to. All he does is assert that no such program exists. If he doesn’t believe it exists, how could he elaborate on it?

        1. If people believe libertarian populism is the key to electoral success, then it obviously does exist, even if only in the heads of those people, or even if Krugman thinks the term is inaccurate.

    2. That’s not the idea of libertarian populism, that’s the idea of how libertarian populism might win an election for those racist Republicans by mobilizing white people.

      1. Then we’re arguing about what “-ism” means. Whoopee.

        The slippery part of the term is “populism”. I think to most people it’s a matter of style rather than substance?not a choice of ideology or collection of policies, but a way of packaging them to appeal to “the people”. Among those who do think it’s a matter of substance rather than style, there’s little agreement on what the substance is; for instance, white populists and black populists frequently will deny that the other category exists.

    3. It’s more rational to discuss libertarian populism in practical terms as Krugman did than to discuss what the libertarian intelligentsia thinks it ought to mean.

      Reasonable assertion: The Republican party killed libertarian populism as a force to be reckoned with in national politics.

      Corollary: Libertarian intellectuals are fundamentally unserious.

      Consolation prize: None. Paul Krugman has shown himself in this matter to be more reasonable and more down-to-earth than his libertarian critics. That’s a disgrace.

      1. AhAHHAHAHAHA Stop please. Can’t breathe.

      2. lol – this is too much:

        Consolation prize: None. Paul Krugman has shown himself in this matter to be more reasonable and more down-to-earth than his libertarian critics.

        On what? Please show proof with links – please provide specific facts or historical details K points to which refutes those facts that the L’s point to on just ONE single topic.

        If you can show just one well reasoned argument by K, using facts which can be looked up and hard logic without emotion, which actually tries to refute a specific counter-position L’s & I promise to donate $100 to any candidate you choose for the next Presidential election.

        Before you start looking though – since he is doing he\is level best to attack libertarians in order to diminish this “threat” – he would never lower himself to take the time to fully research something to refute an L position.

        Doing so would go way too far in acknowledging L’s as an legitimate and intellectual threat.

        But I don’t think you can find even one well reasoned argument, with facts and logic, which is just against any L position.

        You don’t even need to find an article where he actually fights Ls – only a good, well reasoned one where his argument is counter to Ls.

        If he uses actual facts and logic – well reasoning – even if I still disagree – I will donate as I said.

        Good luck.

        1. Krugman is not taking libertarian ideas per se, but “libertarian populism.” Here’s Ross Douthat’s explanation of the term:

          “a strain of thought that moves from the standard grassroots conservative view of Washington as an inherently corrupt realm of special interests and self-dealing elites to a broader skepticism of ‘bigness’ in all its forms (corporate as well as governmental), that regards the Bush era as an object lesson in everything that can go wrong (at home and abroad) when conservatives set aside this skepticism, and that sees the cause of limited government as a means not only to safeguarding liberty, but to unwinding webs of privilege and rent-seeking and enabling true equality of opportunity as well.”

          Krugman cites yesterday’s farm bill vote as evidence that libertarian populism is bogus. His argument is not about economic principles. Rather, it assumes that the Republican libertarian populists must be judged by their deeds, because what they do belies what they say. The pork in yesterday’s bill cannot be reconciled with the concerns expressed by Douthat. The best explanation for that incongruity is that the Republican caucus doesn’t genuinely support libertarian populism.

          For all of Krugman’s faults, he has a firmer grasp of political reality than many of his critics.

          Since I didn’t address your challenge directly, I wouldn’t expect you to concede any points. As a matter of principle, just so you know, I don’t give money to political campaigns.

  39. Jesse, what didn’t you understand? Krugman’s argument seems clear enough to me:

    Libertarian populism is bunk because:

    1) Ruy Texaria proved that Sean Trende’s missing white voter hypothesis was a myth; and

    2) Many food stamp recipients are white.

    therefore, libertarian populism is bunk.

  40. Krugman pumps BO on demand. That’s how they spread their stupidity.

  41. No need to read because Krug is surely spouting gibberish. All you need to know about this fuck is in the fact that politicians endorse him. Once some pos in Washington likes something, its time to be concerned.
    Break a window and watch prosperity pour from it. That is what this dip-shit proposes for a solution.

  42. Is he ever going to apologize to Salim Furth for nastily endorsing the Dmeocrat attack on Furth that claimed (among other hilarities) austerity would cause Ireland’s GDP to shrink by 95%?

  43. Comments at the NYT…

    The pain. It is limitless. The smug elitism abounds. They all gabble incessantly about how everyone who believes this “limited government” INSANITY has been ‘duped’ or ‘manipulated by teh billionaires’…

    One person – ONE – out of 1000 suggests maybe there may be more to it…


    “”Larry
    Richmond VA
    I’m not so sure. I’ve met some of these people, some are downscale whites, some are middle-class and upper middle-class. At least until some financial disaster strikes them, they honestly believe they’d be better off with less or even no government benefits and lower taxes. They resent not the wealthy but recipients of government aid, and see them as the greatest threat to their economic well-being. They’ll accept government aid when offered or needed, but they still think they’d be better off without it, and the taxes needed to provide it. They think that the truly needy can be helped by other family members and religious organizations instead, without all the waste and fraud of government programs.

    Those sad, deluded people!

    1. At least until some financial disaster strikes them, they honestly believe they’d be better off with less or even no government benefits and lower taxes.

      Even after a medical bill that exceeded a years salary I did not favor stealing from my neighbors.

      1. Yeah, what he meant to say was “since my core beliefs aren’t really all that strong and I’m willing to sell them out at the slightest hint that by adhering to them the path ahead may be uncomfortable. Therefore, libertarians must be the same..”

        Not only stupid projection, but follows the idiotic religious line that those who don’t believe, only do so because their life is soooo great and they’ve never had any big obstalces, or close deaths, or…

        It’s all the same arrogant BS – the only reason you don’t agree with us is because you’re ______ (tobe filled in with one of the following depending upon the argument: stupid, naive, racist, hateful, secretly a _____ (tobe filled in…: nazi, conservative….

        Why? Because they’re smarter than you and everyone else. So smart in fact they are certain you need their help thru force of law.

  44. Skepticism of big entities in general is an interesting idea, but the explanation offered here is simply an expression of magical thinking. We know that in the absence of governments preventing, say, monopolies, that they will happen. The same goes for any number of private sector abuses and market failures. History suggests it is kind of zero-sum. You take away government’s power to regulate an economic activity, and that activity, if it is beneficial to the participants, will happen. That includes any number of immoral, harmful, or self-defeating actions that private companies engage in all the time when they are allowed.

    Krugman aptly characterizes the GOP version, that it is the same old crap with “and it’s good for you!” tacked on the end. But no libertarian economic framework is good for most people. Its whole purpose in life is to provide the intellectual basis for the funneling of wealth into the pockets of an increasingly small few.

    1. We know that in the absence of governments preventing, say, monopolies, that they will happen.

      The ‘we’ in your statement are ignorant tards.

      History suggests it is kind of zero-sum.

      Except you’re wrong you fucking idiot.

      1. Stunningly incisive rebuttal.

        1. Kicked your ignorant ass good.

        2. Not that it will help – but cyto’s reply was a logical refutation of your assertions – let me translate.

          When you wrote: We know that in the absence of governments preventing, say, monopolies, that they will happen.

          & cyto wrote “who is this we?” – using humor, he told you quickly that you are arguing facts not in evidence. Or reworded: you are asserting things you have not tried to prove nor shown any facts to offer any proof.

          What do you need to prove – that which you asserted:

          1) That the absence of government produces monopolies and
          2) society/most people “know” this “fact” and agree with your assessment.

          Then when you write: History suggests it [economics/the market] is kind of zero-sum.

          Cyto is again showing disagreement – you may not like his lack of specificity, but as you’re the one making assertions, it’s up to you to prove them (see Lincoln-Douglas debates about how the asserter has the burden of proof).

          Even with that – I’ll still give you an example of how the market isn’t zero-sum:

          Since there were only about 27 million people in 2000 BC, most suffering in abject poverty unknown to most today – and now there is a little over 7 billion people on earth – how are we surviving if this entire time we’ve been locked in a zero-sum game?

          IE- prove that humans today are splitting the same pie the ancient Greeks did.

          Maybe this will help you: definition of zero-sum.

    2. Name a monopoly that has been sustained in the absence of government support for that monopoly.

      On the other hand, what monopolies has the government gone after? AT&T had too big a share of the lucrative market for long distance phone calls, so the only solution was to break them up. Microsoft had too big a share of the OS market, and was using it to create a monopoly over web browsers as well, so they needed to be punished.

      Turns out the market solved both of those problems, the way it always does when one company tries to get too big, and doesn’t have the State to enforce the monopoly.

      1. You don’t think Microsoft’s near-monopoly has had long-term negative consequences? Windows still sucks.

        1. Do you understand that a consequence to the constantly rising levels of regulation and laws controlling business increases the cost to enter any market thereby helping to cement monopolies?

          Contemplate this – that the US government sued hundreds of small banks and actually tried to jail some ex-owners of failed banks for making the same investment choices of BOA.

          Do you think those actions by the government of bailing out the very large while simultaneously destroying the smaller banks is likely to increase the number of banks in the market or decrease them?

          As for windows – what monopoly exactly?

          & if you don’t like windows – why are you using it (while simultaneously complaining about it)?

          I and many people I know have used linux and other alternative platforms for years.

          Are you incapable of installing and using a free operating system?

          Or does Micosoft control that too? & the droid market? & the…

          Not that it will help… but the logical reason no business can maintain monopoly control without government force is force is the only way to prevent new entrants into the market.

          But yeah, MS is big and has flaws – so for you they “suck” and are “evil” – just like WalMart.

          Must be nice to live in that world of yours where everything is so easily defined in black and white / good and evil.

  45. It’s really stunning to see someone who has his credentials as an academic economist sell out as a paid shill for a political party.

    You would think that someone who has devoted their life to the study of economics would have written a different article. One that attempts to refute the connection between the growing role of government in business, and the growing size and political influence of large companies. Instead, he completely ignores the economic discussion, and writes something worthy of James Carville. “Dumb white people are still around, and need to be brought back into the fold, so Republicans will try to exploit their ignorance and racism. But it won’t work, because white people will be extinct soon.” So, that means that there is no substance to the argument that the more regulations the government writes and the more money they throw at favored businesses has no effect on the incentives for businesses to grow ever larger and devote ever more of their resources to influencing the government?

    1. That assumes that everyone who went thru that much studying for whatever field they’re in did so because they loved his field.

      Many people become doctors and lawyers, not because they particularly like either field, but because they are smart enough to make it thru, and want the perceived lifestyle at the end bad enough to get thru it.

      In Krugman’s case – it was always about the power. Econ was a way into government – government was a way into writing – all of which he uses to push his version of control on everyone else.

      He’s even written that he went into economics as a desire to “help others” – he’s not however written anything like “I loved the study of economics and was fascinated by how the market can ______”.

      Nope – his fascination begins and ends with what he believes. And his only work is to force others to believe, or at least act as is they believe, the same.

      1. “That assumes that everyone who went thru that much studying for whatever field they’re in did so because they loved his field.”

        I don’t assume that at all. I spent five years getting my Econ PhD, and after three of them I realized that I had no desire to be an academic economist, but I did have a desire to finish what I’d started.

        But Krugs didn’t just get the degree, he spent a career in the field. And he doesn’t have to love economics, but I would expect some level of academic professionalism from him. This type of hit piece is the kind of thing a real academic would avoid. You speak from the research, and beware of throwing out sweeping conclusions that aren’t supported by either evidence or theory.

        “Libertarianism is for dumb racist white folk who don’t appreciate all the wonderful free stuff the government has to offer them!” belongs in a high school newspaper, not in the column of a nobel-winning academic.

  46. In a sense, it’s a good thing that Krugman believes that libertarianism is just a class-warfare gig, representing “working-class white” theocrats and troglodytes.
    If Krugman as an exemplar enemy of liberty, we should be pleased that he doesn’t understand us at all. Foolish opponents will destroy themselves long before they influence our movement.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.