I have to admit … Paul Krugman is a great poster boy for the “liberal” left. Using his New York Times column as a sounding board, he has successfully built a strong following. I don’t inherently take issue with his politics or his bloviation. I do take issue with his duplicitous use of economics to advance a “duh this is the only right course you idiots” political agenda.
At one time, Krugman was an impressive economist with legitimate academic bona fides. Krugman parlayed this into a leading college textbook
and New York Times column. Without this academic background, he’s just another political shrill to ignore. What’s scary, though, is that he continues to masquerade as a legitimate economist. This gives him the “legitimacy” to write as a qualified expert on macroeconomic politics. The problem is that he no longer maintains any semblance of consistent economics – even with his own work. Instead, his ego led him to use his column as a bully pulpit to attack those who think differently politically – on any issue.
My opinion is based on numerous pieces of evidence where Krugman has said one thing to promote his political agenda and then used the same exact argument to tear down those who disagree with him. The latest example came to me via Stefan Karlsson in his post Krugman Misleads About Reagan. You can read the whole article (it’s pretty short), but here is the gist.
It is interesting that he assigns to monetary policy such a great role in driving the housing sector. When discussing the 2001-06 housing boom, Krugman and other Keynesians have denied that interest rate policy played a significant role and instead claimed that “lax regulation” caused the bubble.
Here are a few other times Krugman has been called out for similar chicanery.
For an in-depth analysis of his column from 1997 to 2006, this report from Econ Journal Watch is quite illuminating.
Teacherman General deficits, krugman, reagan, social security
A headline on Bloomberg recently read: Dollar Is Dirt, Treasuries Are Toast, AAA Is Gone. This not so surprising sentiment is the title of an opinion piece by Mark Gilbert on the investment news site.
Gilbert lays out three reasons why currency investors are starting to doubt the US government, after all why ‘pick on’ the dollar as he says: “These include the state’s pressure on Bank of America Corp. to buy Merrill Lynch & Co.; the priority given to Chrysler LLC’s unions over the automaker’s secured creditors; and the freedom that some banks will regain to supersize executive bonuses by giving back part of the government money bolstering their balance sheets.”
It’s sad, but I revel in seeing stories like this on such a mainstream, if niche, media outlets. Will Obama Time Magazine ever run something like this? Probably not. A likely op-ed in the New York Times? Not if it unmasks Krugman for the hack that he is.
As an aside: let’s make it clear … dollar is dirt and treasuries are toast, those things ring true to me. Adding that AAA is gone means nothing. Gilbert mentions that even a downgrade to AA makes the USA’s creditworthiness “very strong” — something that is laughable. Standards and Poor’s ratings are as worthless as the Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization and the Securities and Exchange Commission that props them up.
Teacherman Government Spending, Politics bloomberg, dollar, krugman, mark gilbert, ratings, standard and poor's, treasuries
Follow Teacherman