I read Paul Krugman’s column once in awhile, and I always come away feeling abused. Yesterday when I read his column, my first thought was that “if I had a subscription, I’d cancel it”. Apparently I wasn’t the only one.
This could be the start of something big:
Click image for the story
I see this as a candidate for going viral on FB and Twitter.
Here’s the Krugman article: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/
From Rumsford’s point of view, surely Krugman’s position is a “known known”? Krugman has the same mental disease that Chomsky caught those many years ago. The piece is just in incredible bad taste and illustrates the vice of which he charges others.
I thought this site purported to be a science blog, not a Republican Club…
Not to worry. He’s only reaching those for whom the NYT still has credibility.
Mike Jowsey says:
September 12, 2011 at 11:15 am
It was Krugman’s claiming that the actions of the politicians that was shamefull is why many are reacting as they are.
Whether one agrees with the things done in the war on terror or not, Krugman’s word’s were way beyond the pale.
Ed Fix: You beat me to the punch. Krugman is glorified, but that is limited to his self-assessment.
He’s no different from any “economist”. 98% of them failed to predict the 2008 crash, and 98% of them are saying the same things Krugman says. They insist that printing and donating trillions to the investors who caused the crash was a good move, and that we MUST print and donate even more trillions to the investors who caused the crash. This is the only way we can avoid “falling back into recession.”
None of this makes a lick of sense by any of the actual laws of economics. Hyperinflation does not create jobs. But it makes perfect sense if you treat it as threats by Mafia consiglieri who are speaking on behalf of a giant blackmail operation.
Thus the “economists”, by their own statements, should be in jail along with their investor bosses.
Ask yourself what it would take for Krugman or any other of his meretricious ilk to understand that (like Churchill’s “Hun”) murderous Muslim jihadis are “either at your feet or at your throat.” But then, Krugman’s wares are long since past their expiration date, as is the scrofulous rag that blazons forth such tripe.
The amazing thing is that Rumsfeld was still subscribing to the NYT before the Krugman article. That rag long since lost whatever legitimacy it once had. Now it’s just a mouthpiece for the left wing of the Democratic Party. Judging from its comments section, pretty much everyone not on the leftist fringe has already abandoned it.
Somebody should tell that village missing its idiot that we have located him in the NYT building pretending to be a journalist.
“This could be the start of something big”
I doubt it. Anyone with any sense had already cancelled his/her subscription long ago.
Counterpoint?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/11/charles-krauthammer-dont-blame-americas-problems-on-the-war-on-terror/
Who knows what Krugman really is trying to say and who cares as he is the political hack pointed out by many on this post. The fact is, however, that the 911 attack was, and continues to be, politicized by both sides. This is unfortunate though not unusual for such an event. Krugman’s article is a blatant example of such politicization.
I’m surprised the Left has not questioned why a bum like Rumsfeld was ever allowed to subscribe to the Holy Grail of newspapers. (/sarc) I’m more surprised that Don would subscribe to a rag like the Times. Don’t recall who said it, but someone thought Krugman’s “Nobel” prize was the first time it was awarded ‘posthumously’.
@Fred from Canuckistan
“Somebody should tell that village missing its idiot that we have located him in the NYT building pretending to be a journalist.”
Actually, Krugman’s more likely location is in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. Or maybe in the lecture halls where he is teaching the next generation of elite economists.
Word has it that Paul baby was several cocktails for the better (or worst) when he let if fly…
So much for self publishing rights.
By far the best part of the article for me was the last sentence:
“I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.”
Yes, Paul, quite obvious. You’re a spineless coward.
But then, looking back over the artilce, Paul says:
“Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.”
And I realized that my earlier response was far too hasty. It might not be solely that he is a spineless coward. It might be that after penning that “fake heroes” line he was too enamored of it to let it go, but realized the ovbious parallels to his prose regarding fake scientists rushing in to take advantage of manufactured horror in the AGW scam and closet socialists (or maybe not so closeted) like Krugman taking advantage of the horror of the housing crisis (brought on by socialist policies) to tout the socialist agenda to an adoring press and win Nobel honors.
OK. There I go again. I can’t decide which one of those is more relevant to why he closed out comments “for obvious reasons.”
Dump the Times with Krugman. Instead, watch Nickelodeon with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, also in New York, but funny.
Old man hates article in paper, cancels subscription. Now get off his lawn!
I don’t usually read the nytimes, but I subscribe to the daily crossword … I’m sure they’re happy that I’ve cancelled; the reasons have been long outstanding, but with krugnan’ editorial I can no longer avoid this necessary step … Bill capron
Peter says:
September 12, 2011 at 11:52 am
The Years of Shame
Quote – “And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.”
My question is – did Mr Krugman lie writing the line?
Regards
Actually, this is all Krugman’s fault.
The subdued mood is understandable in light of the financial and economic crisis in the US and Europe.
In the 1990’s under president Clinton / advisor Krugman a new policy was created to “cure” any economic crisis and stimulate the economy with a flood of cheap money. Super low interest rates and cheap money was the response to the Mexico crisis, the Asia crisis, the Long Term Capital Hedge Fund crisis, and the year 2000 bug pseudo crisis.
The flood of cheap money led to a massive extension of the financial sector, it was the birthplace of hedgefunds as we know them today and the time when philantropist billionaieres made their fortunes and started to buy into politics
In 1999/2000 the party peaked, people quit their jobs to become rich in the stock market, particularly the DotCom bubble, and investments have increasingly turned away form production to the much more lucrative money shuffling businesses. .
When president Bush took over, the bubble has just started to collapse Curing the then biggest bubble economy in history would have required excessive Regan style high interest rates and certainly have caused a 1929 style depression.
A few months into office and after 9/11, understandably nobody was willing to go this way.So overspending and undersaving, loss of production / manufacturing and excessive wealth transfer from the working middle class to the money shufflers continued until in 2008, when the biggest crisis ever, the mother of all crisis started to unfold.
And guess what – this monster crisis was created by Clinton / Krugman as well. Their drive to increase homeownership went way too far. The following policy excerpt had already all ingredients that led to the 2008 collapse:
“For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.”
So it is all Krugman’s fault and I think somehow, he knows it.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html
Praemyslaw said: “…my questions — does Mr. Krugman lie writing the line?
Does a ring-tailed cat have rings on it’s tail?
I do not believe in censorship. However since the New York Times is a for profit publication then technically it is through people paying them for content that employees them. So if you choose to stop reading a paper, that is a fiscal choice, and if you choose to do so because the content offends you, well, why pay for something that offends you?
How on Earth can one get any prize for economics never mind a nobel prize? I suppose the award of the nobel prize was given to him by the panel because they remembered that Nobel was associated with dynamite and blowing up things. It is easier to destroy than to build. As a “Science”, are findings in economics reproducible and predictable?