Nominate Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by FrolfGator

And Krugman (or rather, Paul McCulley) was correct. That was pretty much the only thing Greenspan could promote to keep the economy inflated. Doesn't mean that they thought it was a good thing to do.

In other words, more out-of-context fail from conservatives.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...donald-luskin#

In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company. (One featured what may be the most absurd howler in the history of op-ed journalism: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”) In most of these columns Krugman worked hard to link Enron to the Bush administration, and in one he actually blamed Enron’s consultants for the company’s collapse — while neglecting to mention that he, too, had been an Enron consultant.


Daniel Okrent, while ombudsman for the New York Times, wrote that “Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers.” Indeed. But Krugman’s distortions were so rampant, and his unwillingness to correct them so intransigent, that Okrent — no doubt pressured into service by my Krugman Truth Squad column for NRO — did something about it. Okrent forced the Times op-ed page to adopt for the first time a corrections policy for op-ed columnists. That was in 2004. Later, when Krugman flouted that policy, the Krugman Truth Squad went to work on Okrent’s successor, Byron Calame, who pressed for the adoption of a new, more stringent policy in 2005.

[FrolfGator]

So he was a consultant? Where has there been any link between his work and the systematic book-cooking by the Enron executives? More seeing-what-sticks from conservatives.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by thedyc09

Let's just address the bolded and the meaning of the word "correct".

Krugman argued for a larger stimulus, I believe he floated a number around 1.4 trillion. So is he "correct" in the sense that the stimulus didn't help the economy, the sense that a much larger stimulus would have fixed the economy, or some other way?

We have no idea what a trillion plus dollar stimulus would have done to the economy. Given the way our micro-stimulus was disseminated, I think it quite likely the sausage-making would have served only to make a few more well-connected industries and government friends richer.

Economies are constantly in flux. To assume that Krugman was right and someone else wrong, we must all have the same working context. What was the goal of European austerity? Has it accomplished that goal? What other approaches could European governments have taken? Would those approaches have the same goals or different ones? Would they have accomplished those goals or not? Professional economists and messageboard cowboys would all answer these questions differently. Please, lets refrain from describing Krugman's bloviations as the work of an economic savant.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Krugman did not say the stimulus didn't help the economy. He said it obviously did - as do a vast majority of economists who are not hacks as well as several serious non-partisan studies - but that it should have been larger.

The stimulus program was incredibly well and cleanly run. Republican run Congressional investigations came up with nothing. If you want to check on it:

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by FrolfGator

So he was a consultant? Where has there been any link between his work and the systematic book-cooking by the Enron executives? More seeing-what-sticks from conservatives.

Krugman's dissembling is an unassailable fact. He is an economist that has become a political hack, nothing more.

[FrolfGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Krugman's dissembling is an unassailable fact.

Really? Then post some proof.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by FrolfGator

Really? Then post some proof.

It's already been done.

[GatorEcon]

Krugman co-authored the textbook we are using for International Trade at UF.

[FrolfGator]

You have an odd definition of proof if you think it includes the out-of-context tripe and non sequiturs you've already copy and pasted in this thread. I understand that you hate Krugman for demonstrating that your ideology is utterly wrong and you have no personal ability to refute his claims, but that doesn't make baseless attacks on his character OK.

[Minister_of_Information]

You evidently understand nothing. If you want proof of dissembling, click the link I posted and investigate it further. Or don't. Either is fine with me.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by GatorEcon

Krugman co-authored the textbook we are using for International Trade at UF.

Is it too late to get your money back? For the book and the course?

[FrolfGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

You evidently understand nothing. If you want proof of dissembling, click the link I posted and investigate it further. Or don't. Either is fine with me.

Sure, let's do a dissection of your source:

Paragraphs 1-3: Weird character attacks saying Krugman hasn't been an economist for 10 years, but rather a "public intellectual". This article was published in 2008. Krugman had a journal publication re: taxes published in 2004, books on Currency and Macro, Micro, General, and International Economics published in 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Oh, and had been a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton since 2000.

Oh dear, not a good start for your fraudulent source. Continuing:

Paragraph 4: Characterizes Krugman as a hypocrite for supporting free markets but not criticizing Obama's stance on disengaging from NAFTA. This accusation doesn't take into account that there have been demonstrable issues with NAFTA specifically, involving Mexican problems with poor infrastructure, crime, and corrupt officials, that are not applicable to free market policy in general. So this attack on Krugman is bunk.

Paragraph 5: This paragraph makes no sense. It's basically saying "he can't be a good economist because he's a liberal!" Right-wing fantasy world aside, that claim is bunk.

Paragraph 6: Setting up for more nonsense character assassination.

Paragraph 7: The Enron consultant bit of guilt by association. Yes, he was paid $50K (actually $37,500 because he resigned early). Of course, that consulting gig consisted of just four days in Huston, on a panel that had no apparent purpose and that he now suspects was convened just to give Enron some credibility). That brief, vanity Enron gig is a non-issue.

Paragraph 8, 9, 10: Now the author just starting going off into conspiracy-theory la-la land. Ooh, I harassed the NYT editor about Krugman and forced them to create a corrections policy [doesn't mention what needed correction, how corrections are applied for all Op-Ed writers]! Krugman is flouting the new NYT policy [don't say how, offer any proof]! Krugman's out to get me [don't call his accusation of stacking "slander" or "libel", just call it a "smear" since it's true]!

Paragraph 11, 12: Claim Krugman's influence is waning. Awful lot of energy to spend on someone who's waning. He's still at the Times, still on powerful advisory boards, still talks with the White House. This paragraph starts a bit of a "doth protest too much" where the author tries to convince us that it's Krugman's influence waning, rather than his own.

Paragraph 13: Filler. Paraphrasing: Maybe they did this. But no, they did that, so I guess not. Paid by word count?

Paragraph 14: Non sequitur. Nobel committee didn't overlook Krugman's political extremism, because he's not an extremist. He's a center-left free market New Keynesian, like the majority of the respectable economics field and, based on the results of the last election, the majority of the nation.

Paragraph 15: Same stupid comment right-wingers make about Warren Buffet. The nation doesn't solve its budgetary issues with individual donations, it solves it through sensible tax policy that applies across the board.

There, I investigated your link further. And it was utter, absolute bunk. Mere ravings from the wackadoodle conservative right that's appalled their money grabbing, cronyist, trickle down policies have been abject failures when put in place and are being justly and publicly called out as such by the most respected economists and policy wonks.

[Minister_of_Information]

The reports of tripe shortages appear to be greatly exaggerated.

PS Truman is that you?

[FrolfGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The reports of tripe shortages appear to be greatly exaggerated.

PS Truman is that you?

Ah, the fingers in ears, la-la-I-can't-hear-you defense. Continuing the fine tradition of conservative epistemic closure. Don't like that smarty-pants liberals exposed your pet economic theories as frauds? LOL don't care, won't read!

You keep on unskewering economics. I'm sure it will work out as well for you as unskewering election polls.

[madgator]

Is this why Krugman was been brown-nosing everything the Obama administration has been doing for the past 2 years?

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by madgator

Is this why Krugman was been brown-nosing everything the Obama administration has been doing for the past 2 years?

He's actually regularly criticized them for doing too little of the right things.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by madgator

Is this why Krugman was been brown-nosing everything the Obama administration has been doing for the past 2 years?

Krugman has been very critical of the Obama administration.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

He's actually regularly criticized them for doing too little of the right things.

As do many, buy what Krugman thinks are the right things couldn't keep Lucy Van Pelt's $.05 psychiatry practice running, unless she was taking him as a patient.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by texigator

Krugman is a flaming idiot. I've heard him speak on several occasions and he is either stupid or downright dishonest. So he might be the perfect choice for Obama. Kerry for Secretary of State, Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, Obama excels at making stupid appointments. It's all political and partisan without consideration for what is actually best for our country.

You left out Hagel for defense.

[wargunfan]

I hope Obama does nominate Krugman. The confirmation hearings would be a hoot! Sure he would be confirmed by team Reid/Obama in the Senate. He's going to nominate some politically reliable hack anyway so why not this one.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by FrolfGator

Ah, the fingers in ears, la-la-I-can't-hear-you defense. Continuing the fine tradition of conservative epistemic closure. Don't like that smarty-pants liberals exposed your pet economic theories as frauds? LOL don't care, won't read!

You keep on unskewering economics, cute little wingnuts. I'm sure it will work out as well for you as unskewering election polls.

That which is ludicrous provides its own rebuttal.

And I appreciate the name calling.