Quote of the week – meet the new 'deniers'


Oh, this is hilarious.

On Monday’s broadcast of “Morning Joe,” New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist argued that “deficit things” aren’t something to be worried about, at least for the time being. But according to Steve Rattner, the Obama administration’s former “car czar,” Krugman’s analysis is the economic equivalent of climate change denial.

On Tuesday’s “Morning Joe,” Rattner reacted to Krugman’s remarks by making the analogy between climate change and the government’s long-term fiscal challenges, and suggested that both are problems requiring immediate attention.

“[T]o me, being a debt denier is the same thing as being a climate change denier,” Rattner said. “We’re putting millions of tons of carbon in our atmosphere every day that we are going to have to deal with, and we’re incurring billions of debt every day we have to deal with.

But which one actually affects people’s lives today? Or, should we just let the grandkids deal with it? Heh. h/t to Chris Horner.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

wow…that is going to be a very interesting dialogue in the papers. Krugman has an advantage in that he can formulate his response in an article and blather on and on (as he almost always does).

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead back in Kurdistan but actually in Switzerland

A fancy way of deferring it to our grandkids. Pick an enemy you can’t fight (climate change) and equivocate about the national debt. Presto! Another enemy you can’t won’t fight!

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead back in Kurdistan but actually in Switzerland

Oh drat. Strike tag is bogus….
[Fixed. Use angle brackets. — mod.]


If anyone thinks this was an off the cuff remark by Rattner, think again. They never say unplanned things as the goal is always controlling the message. This is their new meme.


Peter Schiff – Operation Screw The Fed goes all-in on QE

John West

There’s one big difference: debt is definitely 100% anthropogenic while climate change is theoretically some percentage anthropogenic.

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio)


John F. Hultquist

I’ll just dismiss the silliness of the phrase “climate change denier” insofar as its usage is just a sign of the writer being either lazy or stupid, or both. Beyond that, I have developed great concern about my share** of the USA National debt. But if a Nobel Prize winner tells me not to worry, well okay then, I’ll move on.


Rattner has to be retarded or something. Everyone that believes that climate change is real is fooled by socialist propaganda/numbers adjusting to create the warming.
The same is true with the socialist propaganda/numbers for adjusting the debt ceiling. Krugmans “Nobel” is as scientifically sound as al-gore’s.

Can’t help but notice the timing of the remark…one day after Holocaust Day…have these people no shame? ….sorry, what was I thinking…

Pull My Finger

Krugman would have fit right in at Pravda ca. 1954. There is the Party Line and there is Gulag. That is the mentality Krugman brings to the NYT.

Matt in Houston

Hahahaha…one intellectual incompetent (Mr. Rattner) calling out another ignoramus giganticus (Krugman) is pretty funny. Maybe they will duke it out in a free broadcast UFC cage fight. The two sheep could slaughter each other rather than help lead the rest of the world into the darkness.

…Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman…
Alfred Nobel did not establish a prize category for economics – it isn’t a science.
Then again, what gore and the IPCC are doing is not science, and they were awarded the Nobel Prize.
Never mind…

Krugman is an embarrassment to anyone who has studied economics.

Tom J

Forgive my lack of scientific knowledge here. But isn’t the paper in paper money made from forest products? Maybe not. Who knows, these days it could be made out of a new element called, ‘nothingness’. But, if it is made from forest products, isn’t that a hydrocarbon? And, at the rate Washington’s burning through money, isn’t it conceivable that we should tackle that first? Think of the trillions of bits of carbon. Of course maybe we can find some more new carbon sinks like Solyndra. Or, maybe there’s clean burning dollar technology. Maybe a super high speed dollar incineration process that leaves not a trace.


So far the evidence is that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has more positive impacts than negative ones.
So why should we want to do anything about it. Much less do so urgently?


The temperature has stopped going up for some 16 years. I only wish we could do that with the national debt.

chris y

I updated Obama’s climate change paragraph from a few days ago. Glad to see the MSM is starting to catch up.
“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to our desire for immediate entitlements, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of ballooning debt, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of economists, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging spending, and crippling interest payments on our debt, and powerful special interests demanding their share of my money. The path towards sustainable spending will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot allow other nations to enable our growing debt, as it crushes new jobs and new industries – we must claim the promise of a budget surplus and shrinking debt. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality, for it is economic prosperity that funds the preservation of our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”
All fixed.


The biggest debt (and growing) of ANY country ever in the world and recorded history,and it is nothing to worry about??? Can somebody please tell me just exactly what Krugman and Oblame did to get a Nobel prize??? Alfred must be doing about 20,000 rpm in his grave.

Tom Jones

This seems like another reminder that, although current temperature curves say that there is no or very little correlation between CO2 and global average temperature, the meme that says “CO2 causes Global Warming” is alive and well. How does one drive a stake through the heart of that vampire? It is time for it to die.


“[T]o me, being a debt denier is the same thing as being a climate change denier,” Rattner said. “We’re putting millions of tons of carbon in our atmosphere every day that we are going to have to deal with, and we’re incurring billions of debt every day we have to deal with.

Grow more plants; quit spending!
Two completely effective solutions to these “problems” they’re complaining about–and from a Climate Realist, no less.
But do you think they’d ever consider either solution? Of course not! They’d then have nothing to complain about.

It is also a means of creating a belief that the models must be grounded in reality because the debt problem certainly is. Anyone with credit cards gets the problems of debt. It creates a metaphor that can be related to at an emotional level. It also serves to concretise a concept that is not actually concrete in the least.
When I was researching this post http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/now-more-than-five-years-into-an-attempt-to-help-organize-a-near-total-revision-of-human-behavior/ I came across the plans to use education and social science research and what gets funded in the hard sciences to force a belief in climate change. The document involved IHDP and Ehrlich’s Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior. The planners fully intend to track what it takes to change minds and confront any obstacles in their way. I kept thinking of this blog site as what they were alluding to every time they described removing obstacles to belief.
Over and over again it called attention to the importance of metaphors and narratives in selling a story. The even mentioned the Spaceship Earth as a metaphor the typical person could visualize.
That’s precisely what the media is doing here. Remember media and education are just two tools of a desire to control communication politically. No more annoying memes allowed that might undermine Statism.

The difference between debt and CO2 is that the CO2 will eventually come out of the atmosphere. Debt, if left alone, doesn’t go away.


Krugman is a Keynesian. Like with the global warming hypothesis, in Keynesian macroeconomic there are tipping points and positive feed backs (multipliers). Like global warming theorists, there is also the belief that the government can save everything quite painlessly by a few simplistic policies.
There is something that Krugman does not recognize, that is different from climatology. The problem with huge deficits is that there are tipping points that are all too real – and which many Southern European states have now passed. Haven’t heard too much recently about climate tipping points though.

Tom Jones says:
“How does one drive a stake through the heart of that vampire? It is time for it to die.”
Comment often across the internet, whenever you get the chance. On blogs, under newspaper articles, on any source that allows comments. The more folks that read what they privately suspect — that the “carbon” scare is grant-fed nonsense — the sooner public opinion will change.

Doug Huffman

“Debt, if left alone, doesn’t go away.” Sure it does. Bankruptcy comes instantly to mind, shortly followed by quantitative easing.


Some economists hold the belief that it is much better to carry debt than not. And this is true, to a certain point. However, Krugman makes this argument often in order to make an argument for some liberal idea. In my view, his thinking goes like this: He supports a wide range of liberal ideas, including the global warming scam; it costs money; we can use debt since debt is not bad; therefore he can reassure us no liberal idea is wrong insofar as it might cost too much money.
Some debt is OK in two ways. First, the “money multiplier” effect. I put $110,000 in a bank for whatever interest. The bank, unregulated, would lend 100% of it. However, they have to hold a portion back to service requests for demand deposits, to civer bad debt, etc.
So, they lend $100,000 of my deposit to someone to buy a home for $100,000. That $100,000 goes partly to title firm, etc., but mostly to home seller. Home seller deposits $90,000 in the bank. $80,000 of that loaned out, and 10% holdback to service demands for demand deposits and to cover bad debt.
Now, bank has $200,000 in assets springing from $100,000.
Saving.lending money creates wealth.
The other way liberal economists can argue indefinitely for ever-increasing deficit spending is that a burgeoning economy creates wealth simply by expansion, development of new markets, development of efficiencies and scales of efficiencies, etc. As the economy grows, the tax base grows.
So, deficit spending leads to an ever-expanding economy, and so future tax revenue will cover the deficit.
This does work. To a certain point.
It fails in the same two ways. The housing market crashed because (in part) too many loans went bad; the banks were lending too liberally. The hold-back was not sufficient to cover the bad loans.
So, the way 100,000 can become 200,000 works as long as only a modest portion of the loans go bad.
So, that is where the liberal argument for spending supported by the money multiplier effect fails.
When good money is thrown after bad, the efficiency and market expansion line fails to work. Solyndra did not produce wealth. A few received their millions, shuffled th emoney over-seas, and our economy was constricted to that degree.
Welfare does not produce people who contribute to overall economic growth and efficiency. It will only in a round-about way. If welfare reciipents have children who grow up to have jobs and ddevelop businesses, then the ‘welfare’ was actually working as an investment: money spent to create more wealth.
Saving ourselves from disaster is merely safeguarding the economy; it is not building wealth. If an actual disaster is prevented, then the net effect will be positive. But the “precaution principle” can be applied to many feared but unrealistic disasters (global warming, overpopulation, and so on) that to spend money safeguarding every disaster scenario would bankrupt us.
If and when solar becomes cost-effective versus coal etc., the market will take off on its own.
Finally, a problem of debt is that the borrower is slave to the lender. When China sends us baby food with melamine in it, or baby toys with lead paint, or threatens the other China, how can we confront them? We are not international equals; we are their slaves. If we get mad at them and throw some trade embargoes for giving our kids lead-tainted toys, they simply jack with our economy.
So, Krugman and others can come up with the debt-is-good arguments. All are valid, to a certain point. But over-extended is over-extended, Adam Smith still prevails, and the borrower is always slave to the lender.

Chuck Nolan

Wasting taxpayer money on a scam is wrong.
That’s spending money we don’t have on something we don’t need.
That’s called waste.


I really have to wonder at these two palooka’s . Krugman thinks printing money will fix the economy. That being the case why doesn’t every country just print their way out of difficulty like Zimbabwe did. That should work.
The CO2 boogyman that worries Ratner is beyond pathetic.
Both of them are quite useless and in my opinion cocaine has a lot to answer for. You can substitute liberal/left ideology for cocaine if you like because they are both absurd in their outcomes but it really doesn’t make any difference. They are both dismantling everything good that has been built up over centuries.
The debate isn’t about economics or science it’s about ideology.


Terrible political sense.
In my experience:
Folks who worry about the debt tend to think AGW is nonsense. They will tune him out.
(These look at data relative to history, and don’t trust academics)
Folks who worry about AGW are also Keynesians. They will tune him out.
(These look at model output, and trust consensus)
I’m obviously (over)generalizing, but I believe there is truth in my observation. Both groups think this man is a fool.


Debt left alone grows with the intrest rate, compounded year on year.


But which one actually affects people’s lives today?
They told me I had to give them my money to hold…..because I was too dumb to save it on my own
….they spent it on Solyndra
They told me I had to give them my money to pay for my health care…because I was too dumb again….they spent it on windmills
Now they tell me they spent all the money I gave them and there’s no more money…..but they have the money for new infrastructure projects and to hire more government employees…..
They told me we’re all going to die from the heat…..if they don’t make heating in the winter more expensive…..now people can’t afford to keep warm
The told me cheap energy was the problem….so they raise the price of everything I need
…and their mouth piece campaigned by telling me how irresponsible I had been with my spending, credit cards, savings, mortgage, etc


Here’s the linkage: Paul Krugman was an adviser to ENRON as it was developing it’s fraudulent accounting and energy trading schemes.

William H

Tom J: ‘paper money’?
Tom, US currency is actually made from 25% cotton and 75% linen. No wood products were sacrificed in this. However, there is a rumor that growing cotton involves carbon dioxide.

Theo Goodwin

What a joy to see Krugman get a taste of his own venom!

M Simon

Who are the deniers? Those that pay no attention to the 16 year stall in temperatures.

Will Nelson

chris y says:
January 29, 2013 at 11:35 am
Amazing how very very close the President came to making a great speech. But unlike horseshoes and hand grenades…

Interesting how he equates two issues that are on the political poles. Left wingers thing AGW is a problem, but debt is great. Right wingers thing debt is a problem but AGW is insignificant. He should have fun trying to find allies on this one…


thelastdemocrat says:
January 29, 2013 at 11:57 am
“So, they lend $100,000 of my deposit to someone to buy a home for $100,000. That $100,000 goes partly to title firm, etc., but mostly to home seller. Home seller deposits $90,000 in the bank. $80,000 of that loaned out, and 10% holdback to service demands for demand deposits and to cover bad debt.
Now, bank has $200,000 in assets springing from $100,000.”
That’s not the only way it works. Fractional reserve banking allows the bank to lend a multiple of your deposit, because it is assumed that not all lenders (you and other depositors) will want their deposits back at the same time.
“Exceeding $79.5 million must have a liquidity ratio of 10%”
When you deposit 100k, they can lend a million.
When the home seller in your example deposits his 100K, they can lend another million.
It’s very good business as long as there’s no bust.

“We’re putting millions of tons of carbon in our atmosphere every day that we are going to have to deal with, and we’re incurring billions of debt every day we have to deal with.”
Regardless of whether CO2 is bad or not? Watch and share this key 3 minute video (which converted me from a warmist to a skeptic) for a concise convincing rebuttal of the nearly universally held position that CO2 drives climate temperatures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
Anyway, in the long term, we are going to move away from carbon based fuels, naturally. In the meantime, the real concern is that we maintain and build our resource base (energy) so that we remain productive as a society, so that we don’t degrade into chaos as a society, and our population doesn’t crash. On the other hand, that seems to be the warmist goal:
“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” -Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund [note that the WWF is now spending millions of effective dollars on an ad campaign promoting AGW, and we need a counter to this {!}]
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians, with our localism, .. our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt free at last.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue

Berényi Péter

Trouble is, 97% of money is created by commercial banks out of nothing. They can do it because they have a license to do it from govt/legislature. Best business on earth, why, one gets something for nothing, also, utterly destructive to the economy.
Government does not create money, it borrows it. This is how public debt is created.


apachewhoknows says:
January 29, 2013 at 12:27 pm
“Debt left alone grows with the intrest rate, compounded year on year.”
That’s the reason for Bernanke’s zero interest rate policy – and why he will not allow it to rise ever again (He will fail, though).


Latitude says:
January 29, 2013 at 12:34 pm

…and their mouth piece campaigned by telling me how irresponsible I had been with my spending, credit cards, savings, mortgage, etc.

Yet their “mouth piece” forgot to add how irresponsible his supporters would be with their votes.
How convenient.

Once a precedent is established that a government can spend more than it has already received in tax revenues then there is no built-in braking effect preventing it from justifying a little bit more deficit spending . . . endlessly. All the time ignoring the inevitable systemic collapse in the long run. My advice is individually we withdraw and take individually the severe economic pain now for our own individual total solvency, do not procrastinate.
In the scenario of the politically directed pseudo-science of alarming AGW from CO2, once the precedent of having government virtually dominate the scientific process (as it currently does) in climate research and assessment, then there is no built in braking effect on escalating climate alarmism . . . . but there is a trust calibration mechanism called the skeptical blogosphere to remind the public that untrustworthy climate science is no basis for destroying to modern world.

So Krugman is denier who is in denial and castigates those he sees as in denial whilst the government who are in denial are not in denial? My head hurts.


Meanwhile…Up North.
We are also being challenged from abroad by those who would seek to end our way of life for the supposed benefit of the animals that share our environment. Seals are not endangered, and polar bear populations are increasing under our successful co-management. That’s an inconvenient truth that animal-rights activists and environmentalists don’t want you to know about.


The problem is quite simple to those who deny denial deniers deny denying deniers deny denying denial denying.

Wally the Wombat--- lives in hole

Although I am not a USA ciitzen I used the share of debt calculator to see what a person turning 21 in 2013, would be faced with, before setting out in life, all bright eyed and bushy tailed
Ans: $750,000.
But mind you, most Australians think their Government is also run by stupid people.


thelastdemocrat says:
January 29, 2013 at 11:57 am

There’s an old saying. When you owe the bank $1000, the bank owns you. When you owe the bank $1,000,000 you own the bank.
Yes we owe China a lot of money, but what are they going to do about it. If they do anything to hurt our economy, we will never be able to pay them back. And if you don’t believe the loss of that money would be devastating to the Chinese economy, then you havent been paying attention to the CHinese economy lately. Right now China and the US are two legs of a two legged stool. If either of us collapses, we take the other down with us.

More Soylent Green!

Well, of course climate change is real. The climate is supposed to change. He surely means to say “anthropogenic climate change.” Some people know the difference and some don’t, which is normally one way to see if somebody has an idea what they’re talking about or not.
But as far as Krugman goes, if Krugman was right about spending, deficits, stimulus, etc., Greece would have the best economy in the world.