« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

I Suspect Krugman Is On Planet Pandora

I hate reading the New York Times’ Paul Krugman and do it as infrequently as possible. But I had a momentary lapse of judgment when I read this column. Here’s Krugman explaining what he thinks didn’t happen during the first year of The One’s Presidency [emphasis mine]:

It’s instructive to compare Mr. Obama’s rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks.

But he didn’t.

Jonah Goldberg wonders about this too [emphasis from original]:

I have to wonder what planet Krugman is on when he suggests that Obama hasn’t been blaming Bush, repeatedly…Krugman’s perfectly within his rights to say Obama didn’t do this enough, but the suggestion that Obama didn’t spend much of the last year trying to do precisely that is nuts.

I’m wondering if Krugman is trying to ingratiate himself with the Obama administration in order to get a job after the Times goes belly up after they start charging Internet users for reading their articles. Apparently, they’ve forgotten their experiment of a couple years ago when they charged readers for accessing their columnists, including Krugman; that worked out well, didn’t it?

Krugman may have known a thing or two about economics in years past, although most of his current rantings about economics seem to be a forlorn look backwards at FDR’s New Deal. His recollection of history, coupled with a thoroughly nasty partisanship, isn’t an area he seems to have kept abreast of.

(Hat tip: Memeorandum)

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • SG_Lominac

    Along the same lines:

    ?”Mr. Obama didn?t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did ? namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.”

    It must be demeaning to have to type away your integrity for the cause.

    • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

      It must be demeaning to have to type away your integrity for the cause.

      It may have been demeaning the first time he did it, but that was so long ago I’m sure he can’t even remember. He’s been uttering deliberate falsehoods for so many years that it’s probably habitual by now. You could put him on a lie detector and the needle would barely wiggle as he swore he genuinely believes every syllable of every article he writes. But the things he says are so completely backwards that they can’t possibly come from a properly functioning brain unless they’re deliberate.

  • reaganomics

    He’s just got no integrity to basic economics when he’s writing his columns, which just slap the veneer of economic knowledge on everything NYT readers want to hear. His academic work is actually respected by a lot of free market economists though.

  • http://www.criterionchemical.com Chemical Sam

    at least Nash some solid mathematics to describe his fantastic view.

    Short of that I wouldn’t use the Economics prize as a beer coaster in my Massachusetts campaign truck.

    • aesthete

      did some good work to get his prize.

      The Nobel in Economics is much, MUCH better than the idiotic “Peace Prize”; at least it pretends that its awards are given based on academic merit.

  • izoneguy

    Democrats on path to repeat housing disaster

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-on-path-to-repeat-housing-disaster-8275069-60060902.html

    In private conversation, other Republicans were more emphatic. “There is clearly arguable evidence that the CRA is at the root of this financial meltdown,” said one GOP committee member. “So what do they do? They try to expand CRA.”

    That’s an overstatement of CRA’s role in the housing mess, but it’s right about the Democratic plan. Denying that CRA, Fannie and other institutions played any role in setting the stage for disaster, they’re proposing more of what helped get us into trouble in the first place. It’s no way to fix the problem.