Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman's Nasty and Inane Attack on "Libertarian Populism"


Note: This story originally ran at The Daily Beast. Go here to read it and viewer comments.

It's got to be a pretty good gig to be Paul Krugman. He's rich enough to bitch to The New Yorker about not being able to afford a home in St. John so, sigh, St. Croix has to do. He's got tenure at the second-best college in New Jersey, an equally secure gig at the second-best newspaper in New York, and he's even copped a Nobel Prize (economics, but still). He's asked for his opinion on pop bands in a way that I'm pretty sure Milton Friedman or John Kenneth Galbraith never experienced (thank god for small favors). "The New Pornographers are probably technically better than Arcade Fire," he's solemnly sworn to Playboy. "But what the hell? It's all good."

The man also known as Krugtron the Invincible is able to utter such fallacious conventional deep thoughts as "the Great Depression ended largely thanks to a guy named Adolf Hitler" and that the 9/11 attacks were just the ticket to goose the soft early-'00s economy in lower Manhattan ("All of a sudden, we need some new office buildings," he actually wrote in the Times on September 14, 2001) and still be taken seriously. He's repeatedly called for a a bogus alien invasion that occasions even more super-stimulative spending than we've seen already in this awful 21st century—an idea presumably lifted, unacknowledged, from the Watchmencomic books.

Best of all, Krugman has attained that rare level of eminence where he doesn't even have to engage the very opponents he dismisses as beneath contempt. Like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now, he just needs to wave his hand, mumble vague abjurations, and rest assured his devoted minions will finish his work for him.

Krugman's latest target is "libertarian populism," which he summarizes thus: "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."

This ain't gonna happen, chuffs Krugman, because … because … because … Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)! Despite the fact that the former Republican vice-presidential nominee and marathon-time amnesiac is nobody's idea of a libertarian or a populist, Krugman insists that libertarian populism is doomed precisely because  to "the extent that there was any substance to the Ryan [budget] plan, it mainly involved savage cuts in aid to the poor. And while many nonwhite Americans depend on these safety-net programs, so do many less-well-off whites—the very voters libertarian populism is supposed to reach."

Wikimedia Commons

Had Colonel Krugman ventured outside his ideological compound, he might have happened upon the writings of Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner. To the extent that libertarian populism has a policy agenda, it's mostly thanks to Carney, who likes to write books attacking right- and left-wing crony capitalists. He's libertarian in that he consistently believes that freer markets function more fairly and more efficiently, and he generally thinks people should be left alone when it comes to economic and personal freedom (he's not an absolutist on most things). He's populist in that he is basically obsessed with what he sees as concentrations of power and wealth among elites who rig markets, status, and more against the little guy.

Unsurprisingly, Carney's libertarian-populist policy agenda has precious little to do with starving poor people to death or stoking white working-class resentment against dusky hordes (Carney is pro-immigration). Unless by dusky hordes, you mean Wall Street banksters and well-tanned pols such as Speaker John Boehner.

For better or for worse, it's filled with prescriptions such as "cut or eliminate the payroll tax" (that's the one that hurts low-wage earners the most); "break up the big banks and/or place stricter safety and soundness rules on them" (hmm, how does that help the Rothschilds again?); and "end corporate welfare" (Carney specifically name-checks the awful Export-Import Bank and subsidies to Big Sugar, which both receive bipartisan congressional support).

You can take or leave some or all of Carney's libertarian populism—what sort of crazy, pie-eyed dreamer not only thinks that "second homes shouldn't get a mortgage deduction" but that the deduction for first homes "should be capped at $500,000" and then reduced more in the future?!?!—but to confuse it with Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity is a sign that Krugman needs to get out more often. Intellectual shut-ins are a dime a dozen these days, and they all stink just as bad as the next one.

Wikimedia Commons

Earlier this year, in fact, Krugman managed to offend some of his staunchest ideological confreres. In a blog post meditating on why he is always right (a curse, really, I'm sure), Krugman briefly considered the remote possibility that he was stacking the deck by either unfairly cherry-picking data or opponents to his own advantage. Naw, the super-scientist concluded, before offering up this irrefutable hypothesis: "Maybe I actually am right, and maybe the other side actually does contain a remarkable number of knaves and fools."

Such pompous jackassery moved one of Krugman's biggest fans, Bloomberg's Clive Crook, to declare, "A line has been crossed when the principal spokesmen for contending opinions have no curiosity whatsoever about their opponents' ideas and radiate cold, steady contempt for each other … This is America's biggest political problem—and Krugman's not part of the solution."

I think Crook is a being a bit melodramatic (especially for a Britisher), but he's on to something that Krugman exemplifies perfectly when it comes libertarian populism, the possible benefits of a fake alien invasion, and, to be honest, the relative merits of Arcade Fire. In opting out of engaged conversation in favor of an extended monologue in the theater of his mind, Krugman and all other similarly self-blinkered public intellectuals of whatever bent or camp or ideology do us all a real insult.

Note: This story originally ran at The Daily BeastGo here to read it and viewer comments.

NEXT: Anti-Government Protests in Bulgaria Enter Fifth Week

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

  1. Krugman was in particularly good form today, arguing with himself (as usual). First he admits that Detroit has suffered from terrible governance. Then he blames its failure on the free market. He loves him some non sequiturs.

    1. I really, really, really wish that more people would support true federalism and that people like Krugman would all move to one state and put their policies to work. Libertarians and conservatives could do the same. It would be a fascinating experiment.

      1. You mean, like Wyoming and Massachusetts?

      2. I think we already have: North and South Korea.

      3. Many big gov types seem to have moved to (or at least taken control of the gov in) Detroit and Chicago. Their problems are now legion.

      4. You mean like the Free State Project in New Hampshire?

    2. He loves him some non sequiturs.

      Well, statism doesn’t really work, so that (along with ad hominems and tu quoques) are the only way for him and his ilk.

      1. There’s a logic professor on the internet who thinks Krugman is logically sound and never misses.


        1. Not surprising – Rule 34 guarantees this.

  2. Speaking of market rigging, JP Morgan is looking at a $500 million-$1 billion fine from FERC for rigging electricity prices.…..0717-00802

    I take it the “libertarian populists” are pro-regulation now.

    1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

      Speaking of market rigging, JP Morgan is looking at a $500 million-$1 billion fine from FERC for rigging electricity prices.

      What’s most amazing here is that you would seriously entertain the notion that there was actual rigging going on at all.

      1. RTFA. Tim Carney is speaking for libertarian populists and he is against “banksters” and “rigging”. Therefore libertarian populists support regulations against such.

        1. Ever hear of private regulations? The exchanges have them. Libertarians are not opposed to those.

          1. “break up the big banks and/or place stricter safety and soundness rules on them”

            But libertarian populists want federal “safety and soundness rules”.

            1. Maybe you should find some self-described libertarian populists and bug them.

              1. Ostensibly, the Gillespie article is in support of libertarian populism.

                1. No, it isn’t. It’s a rant about Krugman. It simply points out that what Krugman is attacking isn’t actually libertarian populism.

                  1. Yes, this.

            2. Yes because one person speaks for them all.

            3. But libertarian populists want federal “safety and soundness rules”.

              Libertarians aren’t anarchists. I figured someone who was 95% pure libertarian would remember that.

              1. Libertarians aren’t anarchists. I figured someone who was 95% pure libertarian would remember that.

                Exactly my point. The purists who want zero rules/regs are unreasonable absolutists.

                1. The libertopian government would enforce rules against the initiation of force and fraud, while private groups like the CME could, if they wanted, enforce other regulations on their members. This is really not difficult.

                2. But those people, as has been explained to you, are not the same people you are referencing when you say libertarian populists.

                  Which you know, but will never admit because it means your whole attempt to troll a libertarian website with crap that doesn’t apply to libertarians fails.

                  So you ignore that its been explained to you why you sound like a fucking retard, but rather than attempt to adjust your argument, you double down on dumbass.

                3. The purists who want zero rules/regs are unreasonable absolutists.

                  Absolutism always gets under my skin. I mean, come on: absolutely no rape, anytime, ever?!? We have to be reasonable, and avoid the extremes.

                  1. As much as I like rape, I think the absolutist stance on rape is but one example of the stain on humanity that is absolutism and extremism

                    Think of slavery. The absolutists extremists will not participate in any conversation nor will they accept any compromise or reasonable accommodation on the issue of allowing me to temporarily enslave people. I’m not talking all the time, just a few hours during the time when they’re not doing anything productive.
                    But alas, these extremists won’t budge. Part of being society is being willing to compromise.

                    Same thing with arson. The economy is in desperate need of stimulating, yet the extremists won’t budge one bit on my plan to burn down houses in order to encourage spending for new houses. I’m not talking about burning down whole subdivisions, but maybe a handful of houses per block. These houses are only occupied by one person anyway and they didn’t need the space anyway. They’ll be fine living in an apartment or with roommates.

                    Don’t get me started on the issue of adult population control. I don’t want to see every adult killed, that would be ludicrous, but talk about killing just 1-2% of adults in order to improve everyone else’s quality of life and everyone freaks out. The absolutists need to compromise, they need to come to the table and join in the conversation. They need to see that it’s not just about them, but about society as a whole.

                    1. “As much as I like rape, I think the absolutist stance on rape is but one example of the stain on humanity that is absolutism and extremism”

                      “You said rape twice.”

                      “I LIKE rape.”

                4. Force and Fraud you Anal Obstructionist….Force and Fraud.

                5. I wish more people would remember that not all anarchists are against all rules.

              2. Real ones are.

        2. Fundamentally, they were accused of fraud (misrepresenting pricing information). Is there someone defending fraud?

          1. Shouldn’t that be a civil case then?

            1. Libertarians oppose charging fraud as a criminal case? Since when?

              1. Morgan vs. FERC is not a criminal case.

                1. Thats not what he asked.

              2. Since libertarianism has multiple strands.

        3. Just because one is “against” something does not mean one desires the regulation thereof. I am against you, but I don’t want to see the government kill you.

          See how that works?

        4. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

          RTFA. Tim Carney is speaking for libertarian populists and he is against “banksters” and “rigging”. Therefore libertarian populists support regulations against such.

          I must’ve missed that Logic lecture at the University where it was explained how not wanting something ipso facto means wanting that very thing.

          You’re an idiot, Buttwipe.

          Besides this, I am still amazed that someone is seriously considering as true that price rigging happens. Anybody familiar with even the most basic of economics knows that market forces will always trump any attempts at “price fixing.” The whole idea also reeks of arrogance, as it insinuates there’s a “correct” price for something.

          Learn some economics and then come back to have a conversation with the men, darling. Otherwise, stick to your embroidery and your literary discussions about “People’s” magazine.

          1. Actually if you read the article you discover that there is no actual market, prices are set in advance by a regulator and rules put in place such that all players in the “market” are ensured a “fair profit”.

            By finding a loophole that allowed themselves to earn “excessive profits” Morgan Stanley broke the spirit if not the letter of these regulations.

            The problem is of course that an actual market where price fixing could never occur was never allowed to form because it was outlawed and replaced by technocratic regulations which could be gamed

    2. Speaking of market rigging, JP Morgan is looking at a $500 million-$1 billion fine from FERC for rigging electricity prices. I take it the “libertarian populists” are pro-regulation now.

      JP Morgan is a founding member of a banking cartel given to us by regulation and the solution is more regulation?

      You bemoan the shady practices of government sponsored cartels and your solution is always “moar power to the cartelz!” You people, ignorantly peddling your sophistry, are why injustice persists.

      1. Tell that to the libertarian populists.


            1. Ooooh he finally cracked and admitted it bothered him.

        2. I tend not to talk to strawmen and non-entities like the monolithic hive-mind of “libertarian populists”.

    3. The WSJ reported this morning that the amount is likely to be $410 million.

    4. ‘The accusations against J.P. Morgan first surfaced in early 2011, when the California Independent System Operator, which oversees the daily trading that sets electricity prices in the state, saw bidding strategies it believed allowed J.P. Morgan’s energy trading unit to extract excessive profits from the market, according to regulatory filings that FERC has said describe the allegations against J.P. Morgan..”

      So you have a strictly regulated market which someone found a loophole to exploit and rather than adjusting to close that loophole they turn it into a crime.

      Seems to me that the whole problem was the regulations to begin with.

    5. Anyone who says electricity prices have anything to do with the free market is a dumbass.

  3. In a culture that considers solipsism a virtue, Krugman is the perfect spokesman.

  4. Krugman briefly considered the remote possibility that he was stacking the deck by either unfairly cherry-picking data or opponents to his own advantage. Naw, the super-scientist concluded, before offering up this irrefutable hypothesis: “Maybe I actually am right, and maybe the other side actually does contain a remarkable number of knaves and fools.”

    Don’t stare too much on my brilliance, you may actually go blind in awe.

    Interestingly, one of the most notable features of the mountebank and the charlatan is the superlative regard he holds of himself and his greatness as a thinker.

    1. +1 for using “mountebank”. I need to work that into my rotation.

      1. woulda been +2 had he used Blancmange

  5. Am I asking too much to see Paul Krugman, Chuck Schumer, and Barney Frank in a wet T-shirt contest for left-wing men of a certain age who share my faith heritage?

  6. This guy is like Noam Chomsky. He has been consistently on the wrong side of history for decades now and he has a tenuous grip on reality.

    The fact that he has multiple public platforms to spew his gibberish is a worse indictment of our culture than Reality TV Shows.

    1. Chomsky at least analyzes things correctly more often than not. Then he offers the advice of “more government power” regardless on his analysis. But still, that means half of what he writes is interesting slightly more than half the time. That puts him way ahead of Krugman.

      1. It does put him way ahead of Krugman, even though he sided with the Khmer Rouge and at one point professed the whole Killing Fields thing was some kind of conspiracy.

      2. More government power? I am told repeatedly that Chomsky is a libertarian.

        1. Having descended farther down the Chomsky rabbit hole of literary solipsism than I would have liked, I can say that Chomsky has variously described himself as a true libertarian (because libertarian really means socialist anarchist) and one of the only true conservatives in America (I had no idea Burke was a commu–er, mutualist as well). As is often the case with the intellectual left, they try to claim all of the political nomenclature by twisting the meaning of historically established terms, then take umbrage when opponents like Rothbard or Nock turn the tables on them and “steal” terms that a handful of continental, economically illiterate socialists used a century before.

          1. My favorite recent Chomsky moment from a public speech/extemporaneous gabfest:

            “In the Republican debates, at one point–and this kind of brought out who [Ron Paul] is—he is agains Federal involvement in health, in anything. He was asked something like, ‘Well, what if some guy’s in a coma, and he’s going to die and he never took out insurance. What should happen?’

            “Well, his first answer was something like, ‘It’s a tribute to our liberty.’ So, if he dies, that’s a tribute to how free we are? He kind of backed off from that, actually. There was a huge applause for when he said that. But later, reactions were elsewhere. He backed up and said, ‘Well, the church will take care of him, or charities or something or other, so it’s not a problem.’

            “I mean, this is just savagery. And it goes across the board. In fact, it goes through the whole so-called Libertarian ideology. It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it
            through, it’s just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny.”

            Anyone care to guess how many times Dr. Paul has called for people to die as a “tribute to our liberty” and then “kind of backed off” of that claim? Chomsky is what happens when you 1) give up attacking arguments and spend your rage on straw men and 2) have no fucking clue what Bastiat meant by the socialist fallacy.

    2. This guy is like Noam Chomsky.

      That’s not at all fair to Chomsky. Chomsky gets a lot of things wrong, but Krugman never even tries to learn the facts.


  7. I seem to recall that Krugman was a senior economic adviser to Enron.

    In the sense that he has at least 5 minutes of private sector experience, that’s a positive. The fact that he gained that experience working for what was exposed to be a criminal organization is perhaps, not so great.

  8. Wow, leftards are really afraid of libertarian populism.

  9. Alt-text: Mmm, now this pen smells just like my farts.

  10. “Paul Krugman’s Nasty & Inane” would have been sufficient.

  11. Paul Krugman wishes he were a progressive Milton Friedman. He’s pissed that he can’t get his own PBS series.

    Oh, he had a shot at a TV series, but it fell through when he insisted it be a one man show, with himself swapping chairs and labelled hats, portraying his opponents.

  12. Democratic societies tend toward socialism (which is why Friedman and many here hate democracy). Free people only accept libertarian policies if it’s packaged in lies, usually clothed in ugly racism, which might even be unique to this country. “Libertarian populism” sounds nice, but I don’t see how it can be anything other than window dressing. Aren’t libertarians always against corporate cronyism, in theory? Libertarianism doesn’t make sense as a populist movement because its entire purpose is to increase the economic vulnerability of most people in favor of a few winners. That’s the natural order, and it’s only ever been successfully countered by a little socialism. The economic right has been selling their bullshit with populist-ish rhetoric for decades. To this day they manage to convince a sizable portion of the electorate that their real problem is the poor welfare queens rather than the very rich ones. You want to start going against the banks and favored corporations instead of an obsessive focus on some poor person maybe getting some form of foodstuff with government subsidies you don’t approve of, grand! But I’m skeptical that such a movement would be able to resist going after the easier targets (worsening the imbalance), or would be able to convert libertarians themselves from the seemingly entrenched first principle that rich=virtuous and poor=vicious.

    1. What you see above is a pretty good example of the class warfare stupidity leftists engage in when their arguments fail.

      1. Don’t take Tony’s brand of race baiting lightly. The comment section of the Krugman article is filled with notion that Rand Paul and cuts to government are “racist”.

        I mean, what you say. These are people who will believe Republican or libertarian policies doomed Detroit.

        1. Being economically responsible, if not outright racist, is just like what a cracker would say.

          1. a creepy ass cracker would mention something about bootstraps.

      2. Seriously. My Lord.

    2. Is this your way of admitting that Nazis were socialists? (which is why you like democracy?)

      1. A fascist totalitarian state committing genocide is not a democracy.

        1. if 51% of the people are on board with the fascism, totalitarianism, statism and genocide, then yes, it is democratic.

          1. Not even, as Hitler never won a majority. Democratic dictators just need a plurality of of-age voters.

        2. If you haven’t noticed, democracy has produced both social safety nets and “banks and favored corporations.” Why do you draw an arbitrary line of goodness around one, and badness around the other? And, do you really think that democracy will suddenly, magically just produce one, without the other? If so, when does it start?

    3. Tony sees no reason to doubt the moral virtue of democracy. Since we all know, that the whims of large groups of people are prone to sacrosanct expressions of pure wisdom.

    4. Democratic societies tend toward socialism

      This much is true. Democratic societies do tend toward the few oppressing everyone else.

      1. ha. that’s about where the truth of Tony’s comment stopped.

    5. You need to study up on a few things:
      1) cronyism
      2) libertarianism and what libertarians stand for
      3) the tools and effects of socialism
      4) the common problem with both poor and rich welfare queens
      5) the source and effects of subsidies
      6) the true first principle of Libertarianism…The Non Aggression Principle.

    6. To borrow from the military ad, Tony gets more wrong by early afternoon than most people do all day. Yeah, free people hate making choices for themselves and prefer distant government officials to make the choices for them. Yeah, libertarians aren’t really opposed to corporate welfare, despite saying they are for decades. Yeah, libertarians don’t criticize banks and corporation because they are too busy hating on poor people.

      Tony starts by pointing out that libertarians are against “corporate cronyism”, then defines libertarians as being actually for corporate cronyism, and then condemns them for being for something he knows they are against. That’s a neat trick: define something incorrectly as some horrible thing and then condemn it and anyone who is for it. Nice! He probably didn’t even break a sweat doing that, he’s so good at it.

  13. You want to start going against the banks and favored corporations instead of an obsessive focus on some poor person maybe getting some form of foodstuff with government subsidies you don’t approve of, grand!

    We try, but then statists come along and say, “Don’t talk about that. Tell us what you really think about free association and safety nets!” And then they terrorize people that we’ll take away the sliver of government cheese that comes there way, thus perpetuating the very system that props up banks and favored corporations on the backs of working people.

  14. The fact that he used the word “technically” in a sentence along with Arcade Fire and The New Pornographers fills me with the urge to beat him to death with Muhammed Suicmez’s guitar.

  15. Until now, I would have put “Go to the Daily Beast to read the comments” in the category of “said nobody ever”. Still not going to fall for it.

    Anyway, nice writeup and all but “Paul Krugman said [something stupid]” is a bit “dog bites man”. Of course he did. That’s what he gets paid for. If people wanted serious analysis they certainly wouldn’t be reading the NY Times op-eds; anyone reading Krugman knows exactly what they’re getting.

  16. He complains because he can’t afford St. John? That’s like complaining that you can’t afford the more fashionable part of Beverly Hills.

  17. Nicky G has a bad case of the greeneyed monster.

  18. Libertarian populism ah yes, the philosophy of how many good people can we deliver into the maw of conglomerates and oligopolies.

    Your economic philosophy is unbelievably lacking in critical analysis. The rational actor is as rare as conjoined triplets and bears no relationship to how people can and do make decisions. He was merciful on you.

    1. “Dur, I don’t know what I want or what’s best for me in life and I also can’t eventually figure that out so I don’t think others can do it either.”


    2. You believe people are too stupid to act in their own self interest?

  19. Krugman has been very helpful in my understanding of basic economic principles and a variety of economic philosophy. He starts a conversation that goes viral in the liberal media. I blog and have the Krug-ism shoved at me. I do a little research, discover, again, that Krugmnan lives in opposite-world of economics. Suddenly I am larger for having the sense and non-sense. Thank you Krugman for allowing me a compass that points always to nonsense.

  20. Why does Krugman get so much attention? Is it because he writes for the NYT? Because he eats babies for breakfast? Should we really care to put so much focus on the likes of him and vapid pundits like Maher?

    Just curious.

  21. If you think about it, “libertarian populism” is much more viable than libertarian ideology in its rawset form.

    Generally speaking, most center right folks agree with libertarian economic policies. But they’re probably not quite down with ALL forms of marriage, or legalizing all forms of drugs. They are not for open borders, or spending money to subsidize illegal aliens.

    On the whole, minorities (especially the older generation) are not dogmatic social liberals. To be honest, they’ll be more turned off by libertarian drug policy more than anything else.

    Rand Paul is a libertarian populist. He might be against E-verify, but there’s no chance in hell he’ll take Dhalmia’s side when he speaks to any traditional GOP voters. On more divisive issues, he’ll defer to the states.

    At the end of the day, it will be Obamacare that decides Rand’s chances for success.

  22. “But the story you hear all the time ? of a stagnant economy in which high taxes and generous social benefits have undermined incentives, stalling growth and innovation ? bears little resemblance to the surprisingly positive facts. The real lesson from Europe is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.”

    Paulie Krugnuts circa 2010.

    As Europe circles the drain he now recants and blames “austerity”. But it’s the other side populated by knaves and fools, right, Paulie?

  23. I uh…don’t know how to ask this, but…what the hell is libertarian populism? People have been using those words a lot and I don’t like the sound of it.

    1. Libertarianism that pretends to give a shit about the well-being of humans.

      1. If you actually gave a shit about the well being of humans, you would start by addressing the institution that, by far, has murdered, tortured, imprisoned, beaten, robbed, raped, exposed to deadly disease, exiled, castigated, castrated, and condemned more human beings than all others put together. That would be government.

        The notion that “the government will take care of them” is a compassionate response, rather than a brisk dismissal and disavowal of your own responsibility to be a compassionate human being is one of the most indefensible political fallacies of our time.

      2. It’s funny that you think caring about human beings is more important than actually helping them.
        But then again, so many progressives like you belong to the faith for signaling and ego maintenance reasons.

      3. Cool, thanks. Sort of a democratic type of libertarian. No thanks. Sounds like you think libertarians don’t care about people. I think what they actually believe is that the government shouldn’t force other people to help out other people. Can’t someone believe in helping others strictly in a voluntary fashion without being made to look like a monster?

      4. you misspelled Liberalism

  24. It is beyond my comprehension that Krugman can be taken seriously by more than a hand full of Liberal Democrats. He carried Hillary’s water all during the primaries until he jumped ship to Obama. ( got to keep that always right percentage up there)

    I once was reading an article where he was quoted as saying we could never wind up like Greece. He laughed and said, “because we can just always print more money when we need more money and that that is a good thing to do”.

    1. And he’s yet to be disproved.

      1. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into, so I don’t expect anyone to meet your standard of proof. Nor do I expect your or your ilk to see the burden proof lies with those making affirmative claims.

      2. Well, unrepentant Keynsian pump-priming, of which he is a primary advocate, has been disproved and discredited since the 1960s. That is why Krugman spends his time on the op-ed pages and not the QJE. He’s not a practicing economist, he is James Carville with a beard. Not submitting your ideas for peer review does wonders to avoid having them disproved.

        1. You’re my favorite President, Cal.

      3. I think his repetitive use of the Broken Window Fallacy has been handily disproved.

  25. History will judge him to be the moron he is.

    1. Absolutely ridiculous. He’s a highly intelligent person who understands liberalism, populism, economic models and rhetoric. I have no doubt “Professor Krugman! Professor Krugman!” has a most sophisticated, progressive model of the nature of conscience.

  26. Apparently “middle class White” causes Krugman no fear of being labelled a racist. Is Krugman Jewish? Is that why he tosses the words White around as though it doesn’t apply to him? I see the Krugman byline mostly in the NY Times, which apparently pulls him off the bench when they need “unbiased” counterarguments against one of their many enemies. He functions as their straw man, in other words. I can’t really remember anything he ever said, except that I do remember finding most of it transparently provocative and in no way scientific. But then, who said economics was a science. It’s on a par with sociology, psychology and psychiatry. You know, totally useless.

  27. Thank you very much

  28. experienced (thank god for small favors). “The New Pornographer

  29. In two parts:

    Pt 1: I see some interesting comments regarding safety nets. I would appreciate some thoughtful comments on this: I consider myself to be a libertarian, yet I have an increasingly positive view about the need for increasing government safety nets. Here’s why:

    (1) I think the whole concept of “safety net” is fluid. Consider a hypothetical totally free enterprise system of the Randist sort: is the military, for example, a “safety net”? It’s a collective protection against foreign invasion. Similarly, the police and the courts are a collective safety net against domestic force and fraud. Public fire department? Public postal system? Public roads? Is it so easy to differentiate “commons” goods into legitimate collective defenses and “iffy” collective protections such as unemployment insurance and WIC? I am not entirely sure that there can be a clear demarcation between the two.

    (2) We are entering a paradigm-changer. And, yes, I think I am using that overworked word correctly here. Our capitalistic consumer economy is entering a new phase that will eliminate the scarcity-based economics of both Capitalism and Marxism. Hurray! FARP (meaning Fully Automated, Roboticized and Programmed) is ushering in the 2nd Industrial Revolution.

    to be continued

  30. Pt 2:

    – Everything we need for survival will soon be zero cost because everything will be made by robots.
    – Flip side (there is always a flip side): Oh noes, that also means that the unemployment rate will be 95%.

    Search YouTube for “McAfee Race Against the Machine” and Google “Wilson the RICH Economy” and “C. H. Douglas.”

    IF all this is coming to pass, then I see no other possibility than The State being closely involved in creating the new economic safely nets that are going to be necessary. In the best case, I foresee:

    (1) a FARPed goverment owned or licensed “socialist” industrial consumer complex that supplies bland generic necessities of life at no current cost.

    (2) some form of Social Credit or Guaranteed Minimum Income equally paid to ALL citizens, rich and poor.

    (3) a probably quite decadent and lively free enterprise sector for everything else that is not a freebie.

    Yes, yes, this broad outline is very simplistic. But will someone explain to me how it is incorrect or impossible?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.