Posted on Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
Keep Paul Krugman's column and a balanced outlook
By Letters to the Editor
Stop publishing Paul Krugman's column? (Letters to editor, Aug. 28) NO, and for exactly the same reason the correspondent cites for doing so: to continue to publish a more balanced outlook, no matter the source.
I could suggest that George Will's column be terminated as well but that would destroy the purpose of the editorial page.
John D. Mohler
Chelsea
Comments
Mike K
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.
Yes Ed, I know. Thomas Jefferson is irrelevent. The left "progressed" past the ideas of the men and woman who founded the country. I know Jefferson owned slaves, and it is widely known that he had "relations" with them. And then?
Mike K
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.
You missed the point. You call it an old aphorism, and I call it a guiding principle of our country. I think the latter is more appropriate.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 19, 2011 : 2:53 a.m.
I guess I am insulting Michele Bachmann and her supporters by repeating what she said? I suggest you look up the definition of "aphorism". GN&GL
Mike K
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 6:21 p.m.
Ah, the stereotype proves itself true. "Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them" I wouldn't called Jefferson's quotes aphorisms. They are the contextual framework of our country - our existance as a sovereign nation. How could this be intellectually empty professor?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
. . . and then????? Why, of course!! I know!!!! According to Michele Bachmann, he and all of the other founding fathers ended slavery. My apparently obtuse point is that applying aphorisms that are two centuries old constitutes an intellectually empty reply in a serious conversation. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
MK wrote: "Need proof? Try this one from Thomas Jefferson" --and-- "Tell me Jefferson wasn't clarvoyant [sic]." Note to MK: Jefferson also owned slaves. So I guess he's a 21st century expert on the labor market, too? Good Night and Good Luck
Mike K
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.
The issue with Krugman is that he only has three tools in his toolbox - government, government and government. That would make him a nobel prize winning STATIST which, as many may know, is in the polar opposite direction of what this country was suppose to be. Need proof? Try this one from Thomas Jefferson. "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits"
Mike K
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 8:45 p.m.
Tell me Jefferson wasn't clarvoyant. "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" He saw Krugman and his ilk coming lol
Ross
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 2:04 a.m.
Or how Snyder gets elected Governor. No one gives two farts about debating facts.... just a general anti-democrat sentiment is enough to elect the man who will simply decide important things as he sees fit. No oversight required.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 12:41 a.m.
Those who would dismiss the educated opinions of people like Krugman or Will need to step back and reflect on the source of their own opinions. Are they based on fact? Are they educated opinions? Krugman is a Nobel Price Winning Economist, George Will has a Phd. Their opinions should be taken seriously and reflected upon with an open mind. Those of us with lesser education and closed minds would do well listening to those who have devoted much more time to studying and thinking about weighty subjects like macro-economics and global politics. Dismissing their opinions with labels like "far left wing" and "borderline socialist" is just ignorant.
jcj
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.
"Those of us with lesser education and closed minds would do well listening to those who have devoted much more time to studying and thinking about weighty subjects like macro-economics and global politics." Lesser education does not necessarily mean "closed minds" "George Will has a Phd." Whoopte doo !So do many that you would no doubt take issue with!
distancemaster
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 10:34 p.m.
Please keep Krugman. The former Enron advisor is a constant source of amusement to me and many others.
distancemaster
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 4:36 p.m.
Anyone who gives credence to "analysis" from Mark Zandi is obviously not interested in logic and facts, or open to serious discussions. Exactly where did I say that I am a conservative? Or is this just another pathetic ad hominem attack?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
Only conservatives would construe Krugman's "alien attack" remarks as anything but satire in an effort to show the difficulty of getting anything done in the current climate in DC. Just as, in the discussion above, conservatives either through ignorance or disingenuousness, misread one of his columns as advocating a housing bubble. Why is it that conservatives must always misrepresent things in order to craft their argument? Might it be that their argument cannot exist in an environment where facts and logic reign? And as for his comments about the economic impact of the hurricane, why don't you tell us what EXACTLY about that column is incorrect. Good Night and Good Luck
distancemaster
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 9:17 p.m.
@Bruce Are you familiar with Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy and Krugman's recent columns regarding Hurricane Irene and space alien invasions as economic stimulus? If not, I can't really explain the amusement any better. Also, you're comment regarding politicians' lack of economic knowledge is undeniably true.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:53 a.m.
Not sure what is so amusing about a Nobel Prize winning economist "distancemaster". I have a good sense of humor and so find his commentary amusing but disturbing since he is right that most of our politicians don't have more than a first grade education in economics based on what they say in public.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
"While I would not ban him from publishing -- he is of no real substance. Paul Klugman rants about republicans and conservatives -- this website is leftist in nature" --and-- "There really is nothing good to say about a Paul Klugman or any avowed leftist." . . . equal someone who has neither facts nor logic to refute the arguments put forward by the object of their disdain. Good Night and Good Luck
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 2:52 a.m.
Thank you Edward R Murro's Ghost. All of your comments here are very well taken!!
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.
I would love to hear what you think he published that was of no substance. Generalizations like that are really not helpful commentary. What was it that he said that was not factual?
Tom Teague
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 6:34 p.m.
When I was editing Letters to the Editor for a small newspaper, I discovered that adding the "SIC" ticked off the writers and -- it being a rural southern paper. -- their families. So, I think you chose the proper course.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
LOL Guess I should have used "sic" in the quotes? GN&GL
Tom Teague
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
From the sudden shift in the spelling, maybe they were talking about Jack Klugman the actor and not Paul Krugman the Economist.
Heardoc
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
There really is nothing good to say about a Paul Klugman or any avowed leftist.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.
Seriously? Can you provide some facts to counter the econonic analysis he had provided?
Heardoc
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.
Purporting Paul Klugman as logical is really not understanding who and what this individual is... While I would not ban him from publishing -- he is of no real substance. Paul Klugman rants about republicans and conservatives -- this website is leftist in nature -- balance is not what the let wants --- the left just feels they know better than the rest of us.....
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:21 a.m.
This individual has spent a lifetime studying economics and has won a Nobel Prize for his efforts. If you claim he is of no real substance, you need to be able to back it up with facts. What is it that you knwo better than anybody else, including Paul? Hmmm .... tell me.
Huron74
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
Publish whatever you want. Ultimately I decide what to read and what to ignore.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:21 a.m.
Right on. Totally agree.
Diagenes
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
A balance of opinions in the editorial page would serve the readers. If you are going to run columns by Maureen Dowd, A2.com should run columns by Mona Charen. If you are going to run Klugman, the A2.com should run columns by Stephen Moore. Klugman believes in Keynesian economics. Many people believe that Klugman's OPINIONS are correct. The recent results of massive public sector stimulus, which he advocates, have been very poor. 9+ percent unemployment, virtually no economic growth, low tax revenue (which is different from tax rates). These results lead me to believe that the Keynesian theory does not work. I am sure people on this website will blame Pres. Bush. He does share some blame. He did embrace some aspects of Keynesian theory. Especially after 2006. The Pelosi-Reid Congress and Pres. Obama took it to another level in 2009. We are experiencing the results today.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
I think Klugman probably has statistics that prove that Keynesian economics has some merit. In face common sense would tell anyone that the government is the last hope when consumer demand dries up. Krugman's opinions are based on facts and statistics so I assume you oppose them because you have facts and statistics that are contrary?? Hmmm??? The issue is that nobody knows what would have happened if the government had not provided stimulus. In fact Krugman came out immediately and said that the stimulus was not enough. I have to ask you. If the government did not spend and consumers did not spend who do you think would have stimulated the economy?? Tax breaks work great to sustain a robust economy. Tax breaks don't stimulate an economy unless they stimulate consumer demand. That is why we need a combination of good tax policy and fiscal stimulus to pull us out of recession.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.
D wrote: "The term 'saved jobs' is an Obama adminstration attempt to put a positive spin on its economic performance and not a serious objective indicator." Given that this is not a report that is in any way affiliated with the Obama administration, given that neither of its authors have ever been part of the Obama administration, and given that one of its authors was the chief economic advisor for John McCain when he was a presidential candidate, your above quoted conclusion makes clear that you have simply dismissed the report without serious consideration of its findings. Interesting that you apparently dismissed without comment the contention that the money that went directly to school districts and to local governments saved jobs. But, in Teapartyland, I guess those aren't real jobs. Ask auto workers, auto execs, and their counterparts in the supplier industries (including those at companies that did not receive the bailout who are dependent on the supply chain used by American manufacturers) if jobs at their companies were saved by auto bailout. But you don't have to ask, actually. A semi-competent internet search will reveal the answer. But given your above statement, it is fairly clear you won't believe that, either, and will dismiss it as presidential propaganda. Whatever. Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.
Ed, this is from page 7 of your sited report It is understandable that the still-fragile economy and the massive budget deficits have fueled criticism of the government's response. No one can know for sure what the world would look like today if policymakers had not acted as they did—our estimates are just that, estimates. It is also not difficult to find fault with isolated aspects of the policy response. Zandi gives an opinion without proof. Can anyone show a corrilation between the cause and effect concerning employment? Everyone that is currently employed could be defined as a "saved job". After all they are working. I have never seen a line on a commerce dept reporting form that asked businesses "how many people did you NOT layoff this past quarter". The term "saved jobs" is an Obama adminstration attempt to put a positive spin on its economic performance and not a serious objective indicator.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.
Yes I do. A teacher, or a cop, or a fireman who was not laid off because of stimulus money their community received is a save job. Seems pretty clear to me. Have you read the report linked? Do you have a problem with its logic? Its methodology? Its statistics? Or do you just not like its conclusions because it does not fit your viewpoint? Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 12:35 a.m.
Ed, Say it aint so. Do you really believe in "saved jobs"? How do you quantify them? How do you know the future? How can you say someone would be laid off if an action did or did not take place, but were not laid off? Orwell would be proud of the Obama adminsitration for its creative use of Obamaspeak.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
"The recent results of massive public sector stimulus, which he advocates, have been very poor." Not true. A study co-authored by John McCain's chief economic advisor, John Zandi, concluded that federal programs (including the 1st stimuls, TARP, and the auto bailout, among others) created or saved 8 million jobs. Source: <a href="http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf</a> Regarding the stimulus alone, Zandi concluded that it created or saved 2.5-3 million jobs. Source: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus" rel='nofollow'>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus</a> Good Night and Good Luck
MikeyP
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:08 p.m.
Even though he's a Keynesian hack (sorry for the redundancy) who would have us follow the same path Greece has followed into an economic apocalypse I don't mind having him represented. He's always good for a laugh. The only frightening part is how many here apparently take him seriously. Have you people never heard of Hayek? There IS another way, one that hasn't failed every time it has been tried!
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1 a.m.
Excuse me but what do you mean by Keynesian hack? When consumers stop spending who do you think is left to spend? That is what Keynesian economics is all about. If consumers are not spending, you can lower business tax rates to zero and it will have no impact. Business spend to grow the business as a result of increased revenue. Lower taxes is not increased revenue. Of course people take Krugman seriously. He has spent his life studying economic. He even won a prize for it. Have you?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
"Even though he's a Keynesian hack (sorry for the redundancy) who would have us follow the same path Greece has followed into an economic apocalypse I don't mind having him represented." 1) "Keynesian Hack" = no facts and logic to refute his points. 2) If you ever read his columns, you might find out why Greece (and Italy, and Spain, and Ireland, and the Eurozone, in general) have a set of unique problems that have little congruence with our own. Good Night and Good Luck
David Kempner
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.
Others have said the same thing, but it needs to be said again. Krugman is a Nobel-prize winning economist who understands how things work (and don't work) and truly cares about the future. The right wing loonies don't have a clue; they just keep repeating the same old tired (and totally wrong) talking points. Unfortunately, our country is being taken over by them because, sad to say, most people are too stupid to understand anything that is even a bit complicated. The fact that the most "popular" comments are all anti-Krugman says more about the readers of A2.com than anything else. One would think that an educated community like Ann Arbor would know better, but I guess not.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:03 a.m.
Could not have said it better myself.
kathryn
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.
Krugman is not a left-wing loonie. He is an intelligent economist who has insights to offer into the economy, but his opinions sometimes differ from those offered by the Republican leaders of our state and our country. That is all the more reason to KEEP his column available...so that we have another perspective as we watch our politicians bicker about how to manage policy during these hard economic times. Something is not working well...we can use all the ideas we can get while trying to decide what to do differently.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
Could not agree more Kathryn. The frightening thing is that the politicians are making economic policy based on a first grade understanding of economics. And they want to scoff at a Nobel Prize winning economist. To quote someone who I normally totally disagree with, Glenn Beck, "I fear for our country". :-)
Tom Teague
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 11:59 a.m.
Since the worry here is that "socialist" ideas are creeping onto annarbor.com's editorial page, let me try explaining this in market terms: Let ideas compete and allow the readers to sort out which are stronger or even synthesize them into new ideas. If you are concerned that your ideas are not strong enough to withstand the competition, you should re-examine them. I'm sure someone is queuing up the argument that Paul Krugman is available in other venues. So is George Will. In fact, there are multiple internet sites where you can find any flavor of conservatism or liberalism that you care to read. But the trend on the internet is for readers to seek out opinions that agree with their own. So, the power of the editorial page is that they are side by side where you can read both and decide.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:04 a.m.
Right on! Could not have said it better myself.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
Nice reply, Tom. Good Night and Good Luck
Townie
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 11:37 a.m.
Krugman has a Nobel prize for economics and, if you care to look, has been right about our economy for the last 10 years. Then again reality and facts that don't align with the rightwing myths (tax cuts always pay for themselves and create jobs) drives them nuts.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.
Right on Townie!! The fact is that businesses grow when revenue grows, not when taxes decrease. Lower taxes is great in a recession if it stimulates growth, i.e. goes to people that will spend it. Lower taxes for business is great in a growing economy to improve the business climate. Right now we need to listen to Paul and other people who have spent a lifetime studying economics.
David Briegel
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:08 a.m.
Critics of Krugman tend to believe in a faith based ideology, the mythology of what Ronnie called trickle down economics. They believe in the tax cut, borrow and spend philosophy of W. They believe that W's tax cuts would create jobs. You would be devoid of any semblance of public service to leave your economics to those fairy tales without some reality based balance.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
Apologies accepted. I think K's long published record shows that, whatever one thinks of his views, they are long and honestly held views that have not changed in order to be a "shill". Indeed, he has taken the Obama administration to task many times for not being bold enough. In my experience, a shill is not someone who criticizes as often and as sharply as Krugman has. GN&GL
Peanut Farmer From Georgia
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.
Ed, my apologies. Krugman is the shill for the administration.
demistify
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
You got your chronology wrong. Trickle down economics traces back to Herbert Hoover, long before Ronnie.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
And as for what my namesake would or would not approve of, one thing is certain: As the man who helped bring down one of the great demagogues in the nation's history, he would be appalled at the McCarthyistic tactics that have become part-and-parcel of the mainstream Republican Party, just as he would the party's trend toward anti-intellectual know-nothingism. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
So, apparently unable to address my description of Krugman's point of view, you fall back to the ad hominem and call me a shill for the administration? When facts and logic no longer work . . . Good Night and Good Luck
Peanut Farmer From Georgia
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.
Ed, I think the real Murrow would be aghast at someone shilling for (any) political administration in his name.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 11:22 a.m.
"What he has shown is he and Greenspan were wrong. " Given that the article criticizes Greenspan, I wonder what "right" would be? Krugman has spent most of the last ten year excoriating Greenspan. But I'm OK with it if you choose to mis-read him him and to take a sentence out of context if it makes your tummy stop hurting. Good Night and Good Luck
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 10:10 a.m.
Peanut - he wrote that the only thing Greenspan could do to ignite demand would be something like pumping up a housing bubble - but he didn't think Greenspan could pull off anything like that. No, that's not cheerleading for a housing bubble. Don - except that we're trying the prescriptions of Krugman's critics, and they're failing every test so far. The one thing we did that Krugman recommended was a stimulus, but it was less than half the size Krugman thought we needed, and so wasn't big enough to lift the economy out of recession - just enough to bring GDP back without providing a lot of jobs. Krugman has said that stimulus was too small, both when they were passing the stimulus and many times afterward. And our method for dealing with the banks was created under the Bush administration. Krugman called that a second or third-best way to handle the banks, and so far he's been proven right on that as well.
1bit
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 4:50 a.m.
"...borrow and spend philosophy of W." David: Sorry to nitpick you here, but Krugman was actually for more deficit spending during the past couple years. I understand your point on the revenue side of things...
Peanut Farmer From Georgia
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 3:47 a.m.
Ed, I have been reading Krugman for about 15 years. The first five paragraphs were sarcastic but the paragraph in question was not meant as sarcasm. In a later defense of this article Krugman did not call it sarcasm. What did he call it? He called it "...economic analysis...". That's economic analysis? <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/and-i-was-on-the-grassy-knoll-too/?apage=2#comments" rel='nofollow'>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/and-i-was-on-the-grassy-knoll-too/?apage=2#comments</a> Four years after the 2002 article Krugman offered this "analysis" of Greenspan and the housing bubble: "...So within limits he may have done the right thing..." <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/credit-where-credit-is-due/" rel='nofollow'>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/credit-where-credit-is-due/</a> Krugman is not a noted satirist. And in these articles spanning 7 years he has shown the statement was not sarcasm. What he has shown is he and Greenspan were wrong. Krugman cannot admit it and if you choose to defend him I'm okay with that. But somehow I think the real Ed Murrow would be rolling his eyes at Krugman's easy dismissal of his own words.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:13 a.m.
Peanut: Did you read the entire column? Because, if you did, it should be apparent that Krugman was being sarcastic and was excoriating Greenspan's role in creating the stock market bubble in the first place. Economists don't like bubbles. No economist in his right might would recommend creating one. Good Night and Good Luck
Peanut Farmer From Georgia
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:43 a.m.
David, why did you stop your history lesson at Reagan? How did those economic policies from 1977 to 1981 work out for you? Krugman encouraged the housing bubble. He wrote the following in the 2002 NY Times: "... To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble..." Do you consider the NY TImes faith-based? <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html</a> And dropping Krugman seems to me to be irrelevant. Anyone that wants to read him can do so at the NY Times web site.
DonBee
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:58 a.m.
Not all critics of Dr Krugman fit your image. Take some of the people who are from opposing schools of economics. They have different models and simulations that give different results. Since most of economics is based on modeling and simulation, and none have been proven to be perfect, there are strong disagreements on a number of Dr. Krugman's points. If you accept his word as the way the world works, good for you. I want to read differing theories and opinions before I make up my mind.
David Paris
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 11:47 p.m.
Paul Krugman is a voice of reason like no other. You can take just about anything that he has said (about the state of the economy)- apply it- problem solved.
David Paris
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
a2c... to clarify, I did read the article, but not before posting the piece you're questioning.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 10:02 a.m.
A2C - Absolutely, actually several times, because that's one of the Krugman columns that some folks on the right like to cherry pick, then utterly leave out the context, and claim it says something it doesn't. If you think Krugman is calling for a housing bubble in this, you don't get it. He also didn't call for WWIII, or wish for greater destruction from a hurricane.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:36 a.m.
A2citizen: Did you? He was being sarcastic. Good Night and Good Luck
David Paris
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:56 a.m.
@a2citizen- To answer your question, no, but look at the post times. But, I do appreciate your original post, thanks!
a2citizen
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.
Did you read even read the article? <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html</a>
fjord
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 10:22 p.m.
Krugman is a "far left wing loonie" and a "radical"? I find it interesting that certain people toss out such epithets so easily, yet ignore the extremists on their own side of the political divide. Let's take a close look at the principal difference between someone like Krugman and someone like Limbaugh, or Beck, or Coulter: Krugman has been consistently right. The others? Consistently wrong. And that's not an opinion, that's verifiable fact. Go back and read Krugman's columns prior to the collapse of the housing bubble. He tried to warn us, but we didn't want to hear it (many called him things like "loonie" and "radical" then, too). So call him names if you want, but ignore his advice at your peril. Which is pretty much what the country is doing anyway ... how's that turning out for everybody?
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
And I would add that Krugman's opinions are based on fact and years and years of study. Economics is not an exact science. You may disagree with him but disagree based on your years and years of study and on facts. Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter are entertainers. They don't care about facts or intellectual analysis of our world.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.
@DBH: My bad. Misidentificaiton. sorry! GN&GL
fjord
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
@5c0++ H4d13y -- yes, he was right that time too. Our health care system is a joke. It artificially inflates prices, which in turn inflates insurance premiums, and it excludes tens of millions of Americans who can't afford coverage at those inflated rates. And the quality of care really isn't significantly better (if any) than in countries who guarantee health care. I'll take the Canadian or British health care systems over our current one any day. You obviously think Krugman is wrong, but that's because you're operating from the false premise that the American health care system is the "greatest in the world." Sure, it's great if you can afford it, but it also happens to be one of the major reasons the economy has stumbled so badly. People object to "socialized medicine" because they think it equals "socialism," which is a word most of those people don't understand anyway (they've just been told it's bad, and have never bothered to find out why, or if that's even true). The truth is that countries who provide healthcare to their citizens simply work better. Taxes are higher, but look what you get for those taxes -- I'll gladly pay more in taxes for comprehensive health care coverage and the peace of mind that a serious illness or injury isn't going to bankrupt me. If that's "socialism," then bring it on -- it has to be better than what we have now.
DBH
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.
ERMG, not sure why you asked me if I had read the entire column (I did) as I was not commenting on the merits of the quote (or the entire column, for that matter), simply providing the requested link. You know, kind of like a public service for the readership (or at least for David Paris).
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:14 a.m.
@David Paris and DBH: Did you read the entire column? Because, if you did, it should be apparent that Krugman was being sarcastic and was excoriating Greenspan's role in creating the stock market bubble in the first place. Economists don't like bubbles. No economist in his right might would recommend creating one. Good Night and Good Luck
5c0++ H4d13y
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
Was he right this time "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html</a> Love him or hate him Krugman is a partisan hack. The only reason you think he's "right" is because you read things you want to be true.
DBH
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : midnight
David Paris, all you have to do is Google the quote. Here is the link (the first hit Google came up with): <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html</a>
David Paris
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.
@a2citizen- very interesting, how about a link, I'd like to read the rest of the story?
a2citizen
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 11:45 p.m.
Wow!!! I read one of Krugman's old columns. I found something Krugman wrote in 2002: " ... To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble..."
David Paris
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.
Paul Krugman is the most logical voice of Economic Reason that this country has right now, and I'd think that the majority of Ann Arborites know that. And, DonBee, there are no similarities between Paul Krugman and Glenn Beck any more that Reason & Logic have similarities to Schizophrenia- if Paul Krugman is one side of the wheel... Glenn Beck is an April-in-Michigan Pot -Hole! No, seriously, it's like comparing a sage to a circus clown. I agree with you on reading source material, however I'm no economist, and Paul Krugman makes so much sense out of things like monetary, or trade policy that it's pointless for a layman like myself to think I'd figure it all out without the benefit of his knowledge. On another note, I think that anyone that screams "SOCIALISM" as an implication of current American Policy has not an iota of a clue as to how much damage that Wanton Abuse of Capitalism has done to us in the past ten or so years. "Keep Paul Krugman's column and a balanced outlook"... Absolutely!
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 2:26 a.m.
David ... I completely agree with everything you said. Intellectual minds can look at the facts and disagree on the result. Entertainers like Glenn Beck will say anything they think will get them more advertising dollars. Paul Krugman is an intellect. People with open minds will be well-served to take what he says and the opinions of other intellects like him seriously. Limbaugh and Glenn Beck don't fall in that category. They are pure entertainment.
DonBee
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
In your opinion, I am glad you make up your own mind.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 8:22 p.m.
"an avowed leftist -- one wanting to change the moral character of our country to better reflect his radicalized viewpoint" = anyone who uses facts and logic that cannot be refuted except through the ad hominem. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 1:47 a.m.
You are correct--a misuse of "refute". Perhaps it should read " . . . that cannot be refuted hence the commentator must resort to the ad hominem." Good Night and Good Luck
DBH
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:04 a.m.
Ad hominem approaches refute no arguments, they simply are veiled attempts at rudeness and display the weakness of the counterargument of the person who uses them.
Heardoc
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
Paul Krugman is an avowed leftist -- one wanting to change the moral character of our country to better reflect his radicalized viewpoint. While publishing Paul Krugman and his essays are understandable -- having a voice with a more middle (midwest) american viewpoint to better contrast Paul Krugman's viewpoint and agenda. In fact, this website could use a more midwest viewpoint (value system) as well.....So publishing a contrasting viewpoint to Paul Krugman would better challenge the left in our community to be more mainstream and not so radicalized.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 10:50 a.m.
Does this mean that pointless unemployment is a midwestern value? Funny, I grew up in the midwest, and I missed that cultural lesson, mein herr. And we're OK with the bankers, Koch brothers, and Rupert Murdoch - avowed rightists - that have been changing the moral character of our country to better reflect their radical viewpoint? Murdoch isn't even an American. I kind of thought "love thy neighbor", "a rich man can get into heaven as easily as a camel can fit through the eye of a needle", and working together were midwestern values as well. Geez, looks like I need to get re-educated.
David Briegel
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:11 a.m.
You've changed evil to avowed. Wow, what an improvement!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 8 p.m.
"Far left wing loonie and a borderline socialist" = anyone who uses facts and logic that cannot be refuted except through the ad hominem. "There is no way you can compare the two. " Indeed there is not. Krugman has won a Nobel Prize in his field of expertise, and his columns almost always focus on that field. Will, on the other hand, has won a Pulitzer Prize for commenting on things from baseball to nuclear physics despite a Ph.D. in "political science". Go figure. Good Night and Good Luck
bedrog
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.
For once we totally agree...
Heardoc
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.
Obama won a nobel peace prize for nothing-- I think you put to much weight in a leftist (european) award system.
DonBee
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 7:22 p.m.
Some people say that Glenn Beck is the opposite side of the wheel from Krugman. I don't know if they are right. What I do know is Krugman, Beck, Limbaugh, Maddow, and other "opinionators" all have views that the American public is supposed to wrap their arms around and love. I for one prefer to read original source material and make up my own mind. I find that Krugman is good for a laugh most of the time, and from time to time he actually has something useful to say. Limbaugh has a lower batting average in my mind for useful things to say. Keep them all, read them all and for heavens sake make up your own mind!
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.
I agree. Make up your own mind based on fact. Krugman has spent a lifetime studying economics and has won a Nobel Prize. I think his opinion has some merit. From what I have heard of Mddow, she has presented some pretty damning factual evidence to back up her opinions. Beck and Limaugh? I have a very open mind and honestly I have not heard anything they said that was not a total distortion of the facts. In any case, I say keep them all and like DonBee said, "make up your own mind"..
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.
"Some people say that Glenn Beck is the opposite side of the wheel from Krugman." If "opposite side of the wheel" = someone who uses facts logic to support their argument, this would be a correct statement. Good Night and Good Luck
snoopdog
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.
Krugman is a far left wing loonie and a borderline socialist , Will is a moderate conservative. There is no way you can compare the two. Good Day
Mike K
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.
Borderline socialist. You are too kind. The guy is a statist - period. He is nothing more than a political commentor at this moment. Rush Limbaugh with a Nobel prize. That's all he is.
Bruce Abbott
Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 1:12 a.m.
I would feel much better about your opinion snoopdog if you backed them up with sound economic analysis. What makes Krugman a loonie? Do you have the facts and analysis to back it up. He won a Nobel Prize because he spent a lifetime studying economics. I tend to listen to people like that for my opinion on economics. I do like your doggie though. He is cute.
kathryn
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:14 p.m.
Krugman is not crazy, and he is far less "left wing" than you might imagine from your perspective very, very far off there in the distant right. What our government has done in the past 10-15 didn't work very well for our economy. It doesn't hurt to look at some other options. Many of Krugman's suggestions seem quite reasonable.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 9:57 a.m.
Have to ask, every time someone misuses the term, snoopdog - do you know what socialist means? And yes, Krugman actually earned his Nobel.
glacialerratic
Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 12:03 a.m.
Utter rubbish. Will is a 19th century anglophilic Whig opnionator with an acid pen and a tendentious style. Krugman is one of the most accomplished experts on international economics this country has had in 50 years.
a2citizen
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 11:38 p.m.
"Krugman won Nobel Prize!!" Obama won it also. Doesn't mean he deserved it.
bedrog
Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 8:25 p.m.
Indeed you can't compare them. Krugman won a Nobel prize!! Will: not so much. This 'socialist' stuff is really getting tired and is far less accurate than "barking nuts" for the likes of Beck, Bachmann, Palin, Perry, Paul ... ( I'm getting too depressed to go on!)