Friday, September 24, 2010

Krugman's (Non)Partisan Adventure

I always love to see Paul Krugman use the term "non-partisan," as it generally means the opposite. Krugman is not supposed to use his column for partisan purposes, or at least that is the agreement he has with the New York Times, but his column strangely seems to echo the current talking points of the Democratic National Committee.

His latest partisan screed involves the Republican's "Pledge to America," which I have not bothered to read, nor will I read, since I remember the last bout of Republican rule. Nonetheless, I do find myself cheering for the Republicans to win this fall not because I believe they will govern effectively, but rather because the current Democratic juggernaut in which the White House and Congress have openly tried to destroy what is left of our economy (or turn the entire private sector into one big crony capitalism venture) has been a disaster.

For that matter, when we had divided government in the 1990s, things were a bit better, although the Clinton administration got Alan Greenspan to create the stock bubble disguised as the "New Economy." That is why I will support divided government for the last two years of Obama's first (And last?) term in office.

In reading Krugman's column, I get the sense that he really believes that if the Obama government can only increase the amount of money that it borrows and spends, that somehow this will have a magic reaction in which the government can begin to balance its budget and lead us into prosperity. He already is on the record demanding the increase of all income tax rates (which he claims will create more prosperity because government will have more money to spend).

While I have no interest in the Republican's latest gimmick -- and the "Pledge" is just that -- I also have no confidence that Paul Krugman really has a clue as to what an economy really is and what makes it work. A plague on all their houses!

19 comments:

Bob Roddis said...

I read NEW REPUBLIC e-mail updates so you don’t have to.

But when it comes to specifics, the Pledge limits its wrath to reversal of the Obama administration's policies. By vowing to repeal TARP, the authors promise to carry their counterrevolution all the way back to September of 2008, but that’s it. There’s nothing about repealing No Child Left Behind or the Medicare prescription drug benefit, both of which have been routinely denounced by Republican congressional candidates this year. And the document doesn’t contain any proposals touching on the broader Tea Party agenda of revoking “unconstitutional” policies and practices dating back to the New Deal. Even though most Tea Party–affiliated GOP candidates have embraced a phase-out of Social Security and Medicare, or other radical changes to our welfare system, all the Pledge contains is vague language about “accountability” in these programs. It doesn’t even tout Paul Ryan’s Medicare voucher proposal, and its one real reference to Medicare attacks the alleged benefit cuts contained in the health reform legislation. In other words, the White House is right to accuse Republicans of simply wanting to “take America back to the same failed economic policies that caused this recession”—but they haven't gone back any further than that. That’s how thoroughly the House GOP has eschewed the more radical stance of the conservative movement and its Tea Party base.

And now we know that I didn't have to read it to know what it might say.

AP Lerner said...

“Krugman is not supposed to use his column for partisan purposes, or at least that is the agreement he has with the New York Times”

Do you have proof of this agreement? Krugmans piece is published in the Editorial section of the NYT’s. Are you saying he is not entitled to his opinion? Or is he not entitled to voice his opinion because you disagree with him? Is this the kind of debate that takes place in your classroom?

I pity the students at Frostburg State.

And this blog is a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Anonymous said...

AP Lerner,

I agree you should not be forced to pay for Dr. Anderson's salary (assuming you live in Maryland).

On the other hand, you actively promote and encourage a statist monetary scheme and believe everyone here should be forced to support it.

I might say 'let's call it even' except that what you promote is far more dangerous.

Lose those crocodile tears.

AP Lerner said...

"On the other hand, you actively promote and encourage a statist monetary scheme and believe everyone here should be forced to support it"

I promote nothing but facts that are supported by data. I have offered little to no opinions during my posts on this blog. Only facts. It’s not my fault you guys don’t understand basic accounting. It’s not my fault the laws of mathematics no longer to apply to you. Everything I have posted on this site is supported by numbers, data, analysis, facts. You can debate what they mean, but you can not debate they exist

Prof. Anderson promotes gibberish supported by more gibberish. He would not know a fact or piece of economic data if it fell on him. Then he pounds his chest as if he is the almighty, claiming Krugman endorses criminal activity. Then he claims Krugman has a contract with the NYT’s that says Krugman can not voice his opinion. Huh? Where’s proof of this agreement, Prof. Anderson? Or are you making things up, again. When you say things like “that is the agreement he has with the New York Times,” or when you say “Paul Krugman Endorses Bernie Madoff” that’s called slander. And since you seemed to have graduated from the University of Wikipedia, here’s what slander means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander

William L. Anderson said...

Damn, AP. There you go, hurting my poor feelings again.

callahan auto said...

AP - take a reading comprehension course or stop telling lies. one of the two. i don't believe the professor ever said krugman couldn't publish his opinion. pretty glaring omission for someone that is such a stickler for the "facts" and "data". i guess "facts" and "data" or only useful to you when suiting your purposes. what a clown.

AP Lerner said...

"Damn, AP. There you go, hurting my poor feelings again"

It's Frostburgs reputation I'm concerned about, not your feelings. It's a great publicly funded university. And you are trashing their reputation.

"i don't believe the professor ever said krugman couldn't publish his opinion."

So Prof. Anderson did not write this? "Krugman is not supposed to use his column for partisan purposes, or at least that is the agreement he has with the New York Times,"

And I'm still waiting for the proof that Krugman has an agreement with the NYT's to not voice his partisan views.

FYI - at the top of every Krugman op-ed is this word: Opinion.

For the Wikipedi U grads:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Paul said...

I enjoy reading this blog and find the back and forth arguing rather amusing, with the full understanding that most of what's written is above my pay grade.

Having said that, the one item that sticks in my mind, is what it must be like to spend anytime with AP Lerner. In all my travels around the web, with numerous visits to multiple sites, never have I encountered an individual that more personifies a pompous ass (Dr. Anderson, I apologize for my language). It not just his arrogant, "I'm right and all of you are wrong attitude", it's his moral preening that seems to suggest, like most liberals, his utter disdain for "the great unwashed".

Finally, while I understand the nature of this blog and its focus on pointing out the fallacies of Keynesianism/Krugmanism, I often wonder why we fool around with such niggling details. Why don't we simply point to the heart of the matter, remove all the charts, graphs and various economic theories and cut the likes of AP Lerner/Krugman off at the knees?

When you strip away all of their brilliant analysis, overreaching rhetoric and supposed expertise, what are you left with? Individuals who support the idea of large government and the redistribution of wealth. How do you combat that and force them to actually reveal their true nature? I believe it's accomplished by asking one simple question.

"What is the moral justification for the government taking the property of one individual and giving to another, that's done nothing to earn it?"

Failure to answer that question and you have effectively lost the right to advance any validity in Keynesianism.

jason h said...

I add another question.

If we recognize that private counterfeiting is morally wrong and thus illegal, what is morally different when the money printing is done by a State appointed central bank?

bravo said...

Hello newcomer paul. You see morality doesnt have anything to do with violence or redistribution of wealth. Whatever action the government takes makes us all better off, even if it involves murdering beloved family pets, hospitalizing elderly ww2 veterans, tasering ten year olds, incarcerating the largest percentage of prisoners of any country in the world, propping up monumentally failed businesses, indiscriminately bombing whoever we damn well please, and sucking the life of private industry which creates the wealth the govnerment hands out like so much candy on halloween. I have all these charts that prove im right. Have some kool-aid.

callahan auto said...

AP - read the quote you just posted. Does it say that Krugman can't state his opinion? In regards to this issue, the existence (or non-existence for that matter) of Krugman's agreement with the New York Times is irrelevant. The professor never stated that Krugman could not state his opinion.

the anti-Krugtard said...

All hail the Krugtard!!

Anonymous said...

AP Lerner:

Prof. Anderson simply stated that due to Krugman's contract, he isn't supposed to be partisan. Notice he didn't say that Krugman shouldn't be able to be partisan. Description vs. Prescription. For someone who claims to be so much smarter than us Austrians, you sure make some pretty retarded mistakes.

Your Ad Hominems just make you look like an ass and it doesn't advance your Keynesian garbage.

AP Lerner said...

@ anonymous - and I asked for proof for said contract. Where is the proof, or is ths something that Prof. Anderson is making up to fit is narrative? My guess is the later.

And, fyi, I'm not an advocate for Keynesian. I'm an advocate for commone sense and facts. Also know as MMT. Less name calling, more attention paying, and you may learn something.

Anonymous said...

Nice Red Herring there AP. You didn't even address my argument. Whether the contract exists or not is not relevant to your claim. So good job, you fail once again.

callahan auto said...

AP - pretty feeble and transparent attempt at backpedaling here. You are now shifting the goalposts...again the existence or non-existence of said contract is irrelevant to your original mischaracterization of what the professor said.

Your behavior here leads one to believe that you care much less about facts and data than you continue to proclaim. Tighten it up.

AP Lerner said...

Let’s try this one more time. Prof. Anderson, very clearly states: “Krugman is not supposed to use his column for partisan purposes, or at least that is the agreement he has with the New York Times,”

I, very clearly ask, where is the proof of this agreement? Why is this so hard to understand?

Prof. Anderson could end this post by simply providing proof that Krugman has an agreement with the Times saying he is not allowed to use his column for partisan purposes. If he had such an agreement place, well Krugman has been guilty of breaking that agreement for about 10 years now. Proof of this agreement would be a useful fact to know.

So one more time, Prof. Anderson, where is proof of this agreement? Why is it so hard to link to the facts if they exist?

There is no backpedaling. There is no goalpost. Just a simple question for Prof. Anderson: do you have proof that “Krugman is not supposed to use his column for partisan purposes”

????

callahan auto said...

AP - reread the thread, your third post which was a reply to my first post. You interpeted the professor's statement that Krugman can't use his blog for partisan purposes tome somehow mean the professor said that Krugman can't state his opinion. Your response neither computes nor makes sense.

Again, the existence or non-existence of Krugman's agreement with the NYT is irrelevant to this point.

Pretty simply concept, not difficult to understand...for most people.

Another Anonymous said...

@Bravo: murdering beloved family pets, tasering ten year olds, incarcerating the largest percentage of prisoners of any country in the world, propping up monumentally failed businesses, indiscriminately bombing whoever we damn well please
These are all bad things which I strongly oppose too.

hospitalizing elderly ww2 veterans Huh?? WWII was a long time ago, a lot of 'em need to be in a hospital.
and sucking the life of private industry which creates the wealth the government hands out like so much candy on halloween. How on earth is our gubmint doing that? Right now, deficit spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat. We're the least regulated, most pro-business, most neoliberal, pseudo laissez-faire (really welfare for the rich, regressive taxation for the poor) advanced country on earth.