Great article sums up krugmans douchebaggery.
Paul Krugman is a frustrated man â a Cassandra whose wise warnings are regularly ignored by fellow economists, policy experts and political leaders alike. This past week has been especially difficult for the Nobel Prize winner, who like Sisyphus, must continue to push back against the ignorant fools who dismiss his debt-denying ways as reckless.
Mr. Krugman came on âMorning Joeâ and declared that Washington neednât worry about its long-term debt problem until the moment that programs like Medicare begin melting down.
âIf we are worried about health care costs in the year 2025, why do we have to worry about it now?â asked The New York Times columnist. It is a question regarding our looming entitlement crisis that is every bit as ridiculous as a healthy 50-year-old man asking why he should bother buying life insurance.
(Also on POLITICO: Krugman is wrong - but don't take my word for it)
Paul Krugman justified this indefensible position by saying that since Washington politicians are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, they are incapable of running short-term deficits while worrying about long-term debt.
The Krugman solution? Simply ignore Americaâs long-term debt.
That reckless conclusion shocked even the hardiest of Keynesians on the âMorning Joeâ set last week. President Barack Obamaâs car czar, Steve Rattner, described Krugmanâs views as dangerous. Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs concurred, saying Krugmanâs views were reckless, Democratic leader Ed Rendell politely explained to our guest that investment and debt control were not mutually exclusive, and Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass dismissed this form of debt-denial as deeply irresponsible.
Mr. Krugman responded to the flurry of criticism he received by excoriating âin-crowdâ types like âJoe Scarborough, Erskine Bowles and Pete Peterson,â (and anyone else who disagreed with him) as members of an incestuous clique populated by shallow simpletons who draw their economic conclusions based on hearsay instead of rigorous study and hard data.
Unfortunately for the self-consumed professor, his latest lurch left has created an entirely new collection of critics that are a far cry from the right-wing straw men that he usually sets up to knock down. Instead, Krugmanâs extreme view that Washington should ignore long-term debt until the bottom falls out of entitlements now places him at odds with liberal Keynesians as well as conservative Republicans.
I would like to believe that Paulâs âMorning Joeâ routine was simply an attempt to be provocative and bring to camera the ideological Vaudeville act that he performs daily on his hilariously entitled New York Times blog. This is where Krugman flails about at windmills while professing his omnipotence daily, in between stints as a serious economist.
Krugman doubled down on that act this week, posting four blogs addressing his one âMorning Joeâ segment. In those posts, he characterized me as an angry deficit scold who accused him of being outside the mainstream of economic thought.
That charge is only half right.
Krugmanâs views on long-term debt are, in fact, wildly outside mainstream economic thought. But he is wrong in saying that his interview made me angry. Watch it here and see how I was polite, engaged and entertained by the preposterousness of his debt-denying logic. Far from being angered, I found the interview to be one of my favorites of the year. He is welcome back anytime.
Unfortunately, Paul Krugman and his merry band of bloggers were not as excited by the âMorning Joeâ appearance, as they rushed to their laptops to launch a ham-fisted defense of debt denial.
Krugmanâs apostles then proceeded to mischaracterize his critics and reframe the debate.
Bloggers from The Washington Post, Business Insider and New York Magazine all wrote posts accusing Paul Krugmanâs critics of being ignorant of basic economics. All three then proceeded to embarrass themselves by mixing up the most basic concepts of economics by repeatedly confusing the terms âdeficitsâ and âdebt.â
The Washington Postâs Greg Sargent at least circled back to write a follow-up post that bothered to accurately reflect the views I have been repeating every morning for five years now. But the same could not be said of a fabulously misleading Business Insider post that claimed to list 11 economists who shared Krugmanâs debt-denying views. Never mind the fact that most of the links provided actually undercut Krugmanâs reckless position and supported my view that the most pressing fiscal crisis is not next yearâs deficit but next decadeâs debt.
The Business Insider link to an Alan Blinder piece was particularly supportive of the âMorning Joeâ panelâs view. Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman and Princeton economics professor, warned of âtruly horrific problemsâ caused by long-term debt, health care costs and interest on the debt. Paul Krugmanâs Princeton colleague even shared my conclusion that the coming Medicare crisis will be so great that Democrats wonât be able to tax their way out of it.
Far from supporting Mr. Krugmanâs extreme position, the link to Professor Blinderâs New Yorker article undercuts his Princeton colleagueâs exaggerated âIn-the-end-weâll-all-be-deadâ approach to U.S. long-term debt.
After watching his debt-denying performance on âMorning Joe,â one wonders whether Paul Krugman will be as haughty and dismissive of his fellow Princeton economics professor as he is of all who disagree with his marginalized position. One hopes he instead does something that Mr. Krugman hates to do: just admit that he was wrong.
I wonât hold my breath.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...deny-deny-deny-87722_Page2.html#ixzz2MbDetehs
Paul Krugman is a frustrated man â a Cassandra whose wise warnings are regularly ignored by fellow economists, policy experts and political leaders alike. This past week has been especially difficult for the Nobel Prize winner, who like Sisyphus, must continue to push back against the ignorant fools who dismiss his debt-denying ways as reckless.
Mr. Krugman came on âMorning Joeâ and declared that Washington neednât worry about its long-term debt problem until the moment that programs like Medicare begin melting down.
âIf we are worried about health care costs in the year 2025, why do we have to worry about it now?â asked The New York Times columnist. It is a question regarding our looming entitlement crisis that is every bit as ridiculous as a healthy 50-year-old man asking why he should bother buying life insurance.
(Also on POLITICO: Krugman is wrong - but don't take my word for it)
Paul Krugman justified this indefensible position by saying that since Washington politicians are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, they are incapable of running short-term deficits while worrying about long-term debt.
The Krugman solution? Simply ignore Americaâs long-term debt.
That reckless conclusion shocked even the hardiest of Keynesians on the âMorning Joeâ set last week. President Barack Obamaâs car czar, Steve Rattner, described Krugmanâs views as dangerous. Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs concurred, saying Krugmanâs views were reckless, Democratic leader Ed Rendell politely explained to our guest that investment and debt control were not mutually exclusive, and Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass dismissed this form of debt-denial as deeply irresponsible.
Mr. Krugman responded to the flurry of criticism he received by excoriating âin-crowdâ types like âJoe Scarborough, Erskine Bowles and Pete Peterson,â (and anyone else who disagreed with him) as members of an incestuous clique populated by shallow simpletons who draw their economic conclusions based on hearsay instead of rigorous study and hard data.
Unfortunately for the self-consumed professor, his latest lurch left has created an entirely new collection of critics that are a far cry from the right-wing straw men that he usually sets up to knock down. Instead, Krugmanâs extreme view that Washington should ignore long-term debt until the bottom falls out of entitlements now places him at odds with liberal Keynesians as well as conservative Republicans.
I would like to believe that Paulâs âMorning Joeâ routine was simply an attempt to be provocative and bring to camera the ideological Vaudeville act that he performs daily on his hilariously entitled New York Times blog. This is where Krugman flails about at windmills while professing his omnipotence daily, in between stints as a serious economist.
Krugman doubled down on that act this week, posting four blogs addressing his one âMorning Joeâ segment. In those posts, he characterized me as an angry deficit scold who accused him of being outside the mainstream of economic thought.
That charge is only half right.
Krugmanâs views on long-term debt are, in fact, wildly outside mainstream economic thought. But he is wrong in saying that his interview made me angry. Watch it here and see how I was polite, engaged and entertained by the preposterousness of his debt-denying logic. Far from being angered, I found the interview to be one of my favorites of the year. He is welcome back anytime.
Unfortunately, Paul Krugman and his merry band of bloggers were not as excited by the âMorning Joeâ appearance, as they rushed to their laptops to launch a ham-fisted defense of debt denial.
Krugmanâs apostles then proceeded to mischaracterize his critics and reframe the debate.
Bloggers from The Washington Post, Business Insider and New York Magazine all wrote posts accusing Paul Krugmanâs critics of being ignorant of basic economics. All three then proceeded to embarrass themselves by mixing up the most basic concepts of economics by repeatedly confusing the terms âdeficitsâ and âdebt.â
The Washington Postâs Greg Sargent at least circled back to write a follow-up post that bothered to accurately reflect the views I have been repeating every morning for five years now. But the same could not be said of a fabulously misleading Business Insider post that claimed to list 11 economists who shared Krugmanâs debt-denying views. Never mind the fact that most of the links provided actually undercut Krugmanâs reckless position and supported my view that the most pressing fiscal crisis is not next yearâs deficit but next decadeâs debt.
The Business Insider link to an Alan Blinder piece was particularly supportive of the âMorning Joeâ panelâs view. Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman and Princeton economics professor, warned of âtruly horrific problemsâ caused by long-term debt, health care costs and interest on the debt. Paul Krugmanâs Princeton colleague even shared my conclusion that the coming Medicare crisis will be so great that Democrats wonât be able to tax their way out of it.
Far from supporting Mr. Krugmanâs extreme position, the link to Professor Blinderâs New Yorker article undercuts his Princeton colleagueâs exaggerated âIn-the-end-weâll-all-be-deadâ approach to U.S. long-term debt.
After watching his debt-denying performance on âMorning Joe,â one wonders whether Paul Krugman will be as haughty and dismissive of his fellow Princeton economics professor as he is of all who disagree with his marginalized position. One hopes he instead does something that Mr. Krugman hates to do: just admit that he was wrong.
I wonât hold my breath.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...deny-deny-deny-87722_Page2.html#ixzz2MbDetehs
