All along we've been told Paul Krugman walks across the East River when it comes to economics. Why...because he won a Nobel Prize.
So of course, he is always right and those clueless craven hack Republican politicians in Washington are always wrong.
Sadly, Krugman's opinion of governmental action is solely dependent on the party label of the politician enacting it .
People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago
Bear in mind that from 2005 to 2007, that is, in the three years before the crisis, the federal deficit averaged only $243 billion a year. Now, during those years, revenues were inflated, to some degree, by the housing bubble. But it's also true that we were spending more than $100 billion a year in Iraq.
Why is it I doubt an apology to Bush for running a budget nearly in balance sans Iraq is going to be offerred. Now what was "general fiscal irrresponsiblity" under a Republican president will be a fraction of the structural deficit Obama will maintain long after the present economic crisis abates. If Obama and Pelosi could propose anything which could generate a 2012 or 2013 deficit within $100 billion of the Bush number I'd be shocked
Why is it "deficit spending" is an Orwellian term for the Democrats; they are always against it, except when they get to do it themselves.
And Ok, my economic education is mostly from the school of hard knocks, but Paul, noone really buys two central assumptions in Obama's rose colored deluge of red ink; a) cap and trade taxes will yield a windfall b) long term federal interest rates will lock in at historic lows.
Maybe Paul if you stop sipping the Kool Aid you'll realize that once fed rates return to economically normal levels the US overseas debt load will result in "Buzz Lightyear economics" --- deficits to "infinity and beyond!". And you won;t have George W. Bush, that incurious Texas cowboy to blame. You'll have economic policies generated by the "best and the brightest" American liberal Ivy League colleges have to offer. (It's intentionally ironic I used that phrase; the last time the Ivy League intelligensia were so sure of themselves was during the run up to Vietnam)
I'm not going to dismiss that Krugman is a brighter guy than most, he did see the housing bubble en route . But the bigger point is that when Krugman identified the problem, his political allies made matters even worse. . Unlike the old E.F. Hutton ad, when Krugman talks, policy leaders tune out.
The bottom line is that Paul Krugman must know intuitively that the Obama program is going to yield suboptimal economic results, but is cheerleading for it anyway. And if that doesn;t make Krugman a political hack, well. what would?
I'm not going to assume all 2008 Obama supporters are scamming me about the economy. Warren Buffett was honest enough to tell his shareholders
But Krugman is doing exactly what John Hinderaker predicted in 2005.
Well, if we believed anything Krugman writes, we'd be worried all the time. Or at least until we have a Democratic administration, when everything will be rosy again
The most eloquent words don;t overcome an ideological driven economic agenda based on improbable assumptions and rosy forecasts. There's no Nobel Prize for propaganda, Paul. If you still want to be treated as a serious academic analyst, stop having your columms read like David Avelrod wrote them.
I found this Krugman article from 2000; written prior to his becoming a full time advocate against George W. Bush and for the Democratic party. I will let you reach your own conclusions if the 2009 Paul Krugman fits the definition of "hack" established by the 2000 Paul Krugman
How can you tell the hacks from the serious analysts? One answer is to do a little homework. Hack jobs often involve surprisingly raw, transparent misrepresentations of fact: in these days of search engines and online databases you don't need a staff of research assistants to catch 'em with their hands in the cookie jar. But there is another telltale clue: if a person, or especially an organization, always sings the same tune, watch out.
and why did Krugman think some economist went the hack route?
Love of the limelight, love of the feeling of being part of a Movement, even love of the idea of oneself as a bold rebel against the Evil Empire can be equally corrupting of one's intellectual integrity.
Of course, honest men can disagree, and they can also make mistakes. But it's still a good idea to tune out supposed experts whose minds are made up in advance. Or at least that's what they told me to say.