Asymmetrical Information

I consider Paul Krugman to be a second rate hack. Donald Luskin consistently demolishes his petty arguments. Krugman is the quintessential example of how one is amply rewarded if they kiss the rear end of the liberal establishment. It shocks me to no end to realize that Krugman normally receives $50,000 for a speech. This is truly outrageous.

See! More proof of the "flak" good journalists like Krugman receive, according to Chomsky's media propaganda model! /sarcasm

test

Supply and demand, David. Goes to show one cannot go broke underestimating the public taste etc etc

I admit to envying the Krugmans, Michael Moores, Naomi Kleins and Chomskys of the world, from a purely business standpoint. There is obviously much money to be made telling people what they want to hear, in pretending to be some kind of social or political rebel while living it up in the luxury of New York's upper class neighborhoods, preaching a predictable party line or broadcasting conspiracy theories. This seems a wide and lucrative market and I sometimes wish I had a product for it.

And maybe that is their hidden genius. Behind their carefully designed political image, these people are in fact shrewd capitalists.

"test", Brian? Ha! You think I don't know what that means, you dirty little neocon Haliburton plastic turkey....AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!

The New York Times public editor, like the other New York Times public editor, is just a biased conservative hack who hates Krugman for Speaking Truth to Power!

[/sarcasm]

I just thought I'd get it out of the way. Krugman is such a hack it's sad. Pity too, because he's a smart guy and at least some of his earlier work (when he was still an economist, not a partisan shill) was actually pretty good.

“Pity too, because he's a smart guy and at least some of his earlier work (when he was still an economist, not a partisan shill) was actually pretty good.”

Absolutely correct. The Paul Krugman who wrote for Slate.com offered many superb insights. Was his mind and body taken over by space aliens? The current Krugman is a stark raving lunatic. He reminds me of Captain Ahab obsessed with the pursuit of Moby Dick.

Krugman is a hack, but Luskin isn't? Krugman at least understands the basics of economics. Luskin is an imbecile who threatens to sue anyone who publishses anything that refutes one of his rants in NRO. What's funny attacks Krugman for being obessed and attacking Bush nonstop and then goes into its own frothing, obessive rage about it and cant' even recognize it. This threat is a perfect example of this.

I give up, what? Who's threatening whom?

For some reason, an Aretha Franklin tune from the 1980's is now stuck in my head:

Who's Zooming Who?

Krugman at least understands the basics of economics

That's part of what makes him so annoying -- you know he can't honestly believe most of what he writes.

Jane-

The New York Times public editor, like the other New York Times public editor, is just a biased conservative hack who hates Krugman for Speaking Truth to Power.

You just dont understand The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!

Well, I'll grant Luskin is a hack, and a sub-par hack next to Krugman's contributions. (And Krugman still has Shining Moments now and then.) Always fun to see Luskin giong after Krugman, though. Rather like putting two black widow spiders into a peanut butter jar -- as soon as each realizes the space confinement and the other's presence, they scrap like cats. The smaller one usually loses but it's entertaining while it lasts.

And yet, in the end, the larger spider is still bottled up in a jar. Perhaps the metaphor is more apt than I realized.

New York Times public editors aren't merely biased conservatives, they are mentally troubled.

You may remember Krugman saying on his book tour that Okrent had an "emotional need" to attack him.

Now it's clear that Calame is loony like that too. Two-for-two in the public editor's slot.

OK, maybe the job is emotionally stressful -- but you'd think that the Times's health plans would cover psychological counselling to keep such derangement among its employees from becoming apparent to the public.

Some time ago I wrote a post on my site suggesting that Krugman's columns were actually written by a disgruntled graduate student who was trying to discredit Krugman. I was joking -- but I have yet to see a better explanation for the gap between the early Krugman and the columns.

For instance, a number of times I have found the "ecological fallacy" in Krugman's columns. It is such a well known trap, at least in statistics, that it is hard to believe that no methodologist at Princeton (or elsewhere) hasn't spotted it. So, why hasn't anyone tipped Professor Krugman off about the error? If the column is being written by an enemy of Krugman, then it all becomes clear.

And of course, if the column were written by an enemy, that would also explain such absurdities as his comparison of President Bush to the Emperor Caligula.

I am working on a similar explanation for Frnak Rich's inability to handle metaphors. Could a disgruntled intern be responsible for his columns?

Krugman must be doing something right.

If he were just some hack that no one paid any attention to the right wing would ignore him rather then spend so much time and effort trying to discredit him.

Krugman is a hack who happens to hold some high-priced real estate on the New York Times Op-Ed page. Hence the desire to discredit him. Try again, spencer.

"If he were just some hack that no one paid any attention to the right wing would ignore him rather then spend so much time and effort trying to discredit him."

That's what I always said about Ann Coulter! I am a right-winger, but don't like Coulter. And I frankly don't see why the left is so obsessed with her. There must be some special talent involved in making the other side go batty...

"That's what I always said about Ann Coulter! I am a right-winger, but don't like Coulter. And I frankly don't see why the left is so obsessed with her. There must be some special talent involved in making the other side go batty..."

She's a fox.

Sex sells.

(email is human readable - aloud)

"Krugman is a stark raving lunatic."

Actually he's not.

Krugman must be doing something right. If he were just some hack that no one paid any attention to the right wing would ignore him rather then spend so much time and effort trying to discredit him.

The problem is that he's a hack that some people DO pay attention to. What he's "doing right" is the same sort of thing that people like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh "do right" -- tell political partisans what they want to hear, with little regard for the truth.

Krugman is usually absolutely spot on with his economic and fiscal analyses. Not that there is anything profound about being able to poke holes in GWB's fiscal policies, but he writes it so clearly and cuttingly that it annoys idiots who still cling to supply-side theory.

Though Krugman does slip a little when discussing politics rather than economics - he only slips to the level of other political commentators. No lower than anybody else on the Times or Wall Street Journal's op-ed page, and certainly not to the level of a Fox News analyst or NY Post op-ed columnnist.

Today's column, however, about how America's disregard for the poor compared to Europe's is based on racism is absolutely brilliant.

"She's a fox".

No, she's a pig. Left wing or right wing, we can all agree on that.

Wallster opines

Krugman is usually absolutely spot on with his economic and fiscal analyses. Not that there is anything profound about being able to poke holes in GWB's fiscal policies, but he writes it so clearly and cuttingly that it annoys idiots who still cling to supply-side theory.

Err...yeah like when he decided that 9/11 was a boon to the New York economy because of all the reconstruction jobs it would create. I guess he's never heard of the "broken windows" fallacy. As to the discrediting of supply-side, I suppose you're aware that even Martin Feldstein, no raving right-wing idealogue, has pretty much concluded that supply-side in its weak formulation, is basically accurate - that is to say fiscal policies effect supply & demand in pretty much the direction that supply side predicts.

My understanding of Krugman's jihad is that its largely the result of anger at the 2000 election. Specifically, Gore had promised him a premium position in his administration. Krugman feels like President Bush took his appointment away from him. The irony here is that he's pretty much poisoned the well for any future Democrats who might want to appoint him. Experts with controversial views are hard enough to get through the confirmation process. Experts with controversial views and a reputation for venemous partisanship are pretty much screwed.

As to the discrediting of supply-side, I suppose you're aware that even Martin Feldstein, no raving right-wing idealogue, has pretty much concluded that supply-side in its weak formulation, is basically accurate - that is to say fiscal policies effect supply & demand in pretty much the direction that supply side predicts.

Martin Feldstein, if you are talking about the same one, was Reagan's chief economic advisor. You would pretty much expect him to vouch for supply side theory.

bud, regarding Ann Coulter:

She's a fox.

Sex sells.

A "fox"? Based on what? She's way too thin. Her face is sunken in so that her eyes look too large for her face. Her hair is dry and often looks unkept. Pretty much everything that comes out of her mouth (or from her pixels) is venemous spew.

Whether or not one agrees with or likes Paul Krugman..Ann Coulter isn't fit to carry his intellectual jock strap.

Coulter sells because there is a market for venemous spew. Trash sells much better than sex.

Wallboard: >Krugman is usually absolutely spot on with his economic and fiscal analyses.

@#$%^&*!!!! when will I learn not to use " Hey Wallster, if he's so "spot on" then what happened to the STAGFLATION that he was whiffing up back in April of this year, or the the DEFLATION that he was diagnosing back in December of '03?
Mutually contradictory predictions, each individually wrong, but on Wallster World, they're both "spot on."

Pauly's bum-boy:
"Today's column, however, about how America's disregard for the poor compared to Europe's is based on racism is absolutely brilliant."
Oh yeah, I forgot.
I always knew that ratty little [swearword] had a race card up his sleeve, and now he's finally played it. This annihilates the last shred of respect I ever had for him.

Me "@#$%^&*!!!! when will I learn not to use " "
and then the next character I hit was the uppercase period, you know, the key to the right of ">" and to the left of "?" that key. The conceited assumption built into my "when will I learn" question was that someday I *will* learn not to hit that key, when posting to this blog. But then I just turned right around and hit it again, didn't I? effin' idiot, me, there's just no hope.

Wallster:
"Not that there is anything profound about being able to poke holes in GWB's fiscal policies, but he writes it so clearly and cuttingly that it annoys idiots who still cling to supply-side theory."
That's another thing: The resemblance between GWB's fiscal policies and supply-side theory is on a par with the resemblance between Cindy Sheehan and Mohandas Gandhi.

You too can be a Krugman-esque economic genius!
Here's how:

1. Forecast all manner of doom and gloom, consistently, for years. Everything will go wrong, we'll all be poor and miserable, etc etc blah blah.
2. Take credit for predicting anything bad that actually occurs, regardless of context or how many things were actually good.

In the Krugman style, I present my Oscar prediction:
A number of films will be entered in the Best Picture category. Most will lose. There will be a winner, but so what? With all those losers around, tasting the bitter defeat, does it really matter that just one got lucky? Sure there will be a winner, but it will be irrelevant, because most will lose, victims of a system designed to keep them down for the benefit of a fortunate few. The stink of failure will haunt the film industry. It will be Bush's fault.

Comments are Closed.