(One economist actually believed that the Austrians were the Chicago School and that the Austrians had invented the equation of exchange. I must admit to being floored by that one.)
I still have not watched the Krugman-Paul "debate," although I did read Krugman's snarky comments on his blog in which he accuses Dr. Paul of babbling. I especially find this quote to be interesting:
If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ. (Emphasis mine)Yeah, Krugman believes that Really Smart and Serious People are his followers. I know one of his followers. He told me in the 1980s that the reason that the socialist economy of the Soviet Union was backward and chaotic was that the U.S.S.R. had not been a country as long as the United States. Chew on that one for a while.
Nonetheless, I love how Krugman sets himself up not only to be intellectually superior, but superior in every way to those mundanes who might believe that inflating money just might create long-term harm. Yeah, I know. Anyone who believes that really should be herded onto a farm somewhere and fed grass and oats.
"If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say..."
I think Mr. Krugman's hearing problems explain some of his confusing positions.
Zero content post like this one doesn't belong on the blog of a scholar. An anecdote about a friend commenting on the U.S.S.R.? What???
Krugman is responsible for the thoughts of someone who follows him? This is supposed to reflect badly on Krugman? I'd love to be privy to some of your followers ideas. How this post is meant to display logical thought escapes me. I don't think Krugman has anything to fear from the good professor Anderson.
Bob Wenzels recent post on the EPJ here (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/another-attack-by-krugman.html) pretty much puts Krugman down for the count.
What strikes me is he accuses Paul Supporters of just agreeing with anything he says, but isn't that how he must eat everyday? I mean so blatantly wrong and would rather continue in ignorance than continue in growth and knowledge all to preserve his own following and book sales. If it's not the case than he should just debate Wenzel or Murphy, or the two since he's so great, and get it over with so we may bury him. I would have respect for anyone who can admit they are wrong, or if not, back their words up before resorting to such unintelligible tactics as perpetuated in his comment on Dr. Paul and baby talk.
*EDIT*Put the wrong link in the previous comment.
Thanks for your blog which I just found. I just started reading Krugman's new book on the depression. One thing that I dislike about it is the way that Krugman thinks he has all the answers, and anyone who disagrees is just a blithering idiot. Example: "We understand--or we WOULD understand, if so many weren't refusing to listen--how these things happen. Keynes provided ... [the answers]." p. 22.
So anyone who thinks differently from Krugman and Keynes just refuses to listen. It's amazing how Krugman is so sure of his own infallibility!
Post a Comment