Krugmanomics: Partisanship uber alles

In his most recent column, Paul Krugman demonstrates once again that he is first and foremost a political operative, or, more accurately, a political hack. Despite the fact that he is a highly-decorated and feted academic economist, his economic analysis does not differ from what Paul Begala or Chris Matthews might write.

In writing about the work of the bogus "supercommittee" that Congress is using to cover its latest budget shenanigans, Krugman tries to convince us that the Wise Democrats are trying to save the economy even thought the Evil Republicans are trying to throw even more Americans out of work:

In Democrat-world, up is up and down is down. Raising taxes increases revenue, and cutting spending while the economy is still depressed reduces employment. But in Republican-world, down is up. The way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and slashing government spending is a job-creation strategy.

So, at least Krugman is now willing to part with some of the Holy Doctrines of Keynesianism and advocate tax increases during a depression. (Herbert Hoover and Congress massively raised taxes "on the rich" in 1932, and we know how well that turned out, but since Krugman wants us to believe that the Progressive Hoover was radically laissez-faire, that is a bit of history that Krugman manages to shove down the Orwellian Memory Hole.)

Of course, Krugman also decides to rewrite more recent history, that being the state of the economy in 2000. The Great One declares:

Remember, the U.S. fiscal outlook was pretty good in 2000, but, as soon as Republicans gained control of the White House, they squandered the surplus on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

I will agree with him on the wars and I always have been on the record as opposing them, but at least I never have tried to write that wars also can create a "fiscal stimulus." However, one might just forget that in 2000, the infamous Stock Market Bubble popped, and for all of Krugman's claims that the Clinton administration was the soul of responsibility, its credit-fueled boom of the late 1990s could not be sustained.

However, Krugman wants us to forget that part, just as he has seen fit to rewrite the history of financial deregulation in order to fit his partisan agenda. Now, it is one thing for someone like Paul Begala to claim that the U.S. economy was in perfect shape in 2000, and that the recession of 2001 was the result of the Bush administration "talking down the economy."

However, Begala is nothing but a partisan hack, a shill for a political party, and he has about as much credibility as Karl Rove. I am not shocked or even upset when Begala acts like a political operative any more than I am surprised when my dogs bark at strangers. Dogs bark, and political operatives lie, as such things are in the DNA of both.

It is disconcerting, however, when an "elite" academic economist tries to outdo someone like Begala. As for the "super committee," it is bound to fail not because Democrats are Crusaders for Right And Truth and Republicans are the Second Coming of Darth Vader, but because delusion reigns in Congress, the White House, and in the economics department at Princeton University.

This committee will fail because no one on it is willing to face up to the fact that the U.S. Government has brought disaster upon the economy and except for a few lonely prophets in the House of Representatives (who are openly disdained for their courage), no one in Washington is willing to admit that this current path is not sustainable. The "cuts" in spending are laughable, since they only would be cutting some of the proposed INCREASES in spending. (Only in Washington and at Princeton is a smaller increase in spending called a "cut.")

Yes, failure will come not because Democrats are good and Republicans are evil, but rather because Democrats and Republicans refuse to recognize how they have run this country into utter insolvency.

Science or just opinion?

In a recent column, Paul Krugman repeated the usual canard that Republicans are "anti-science," which is another way of saying that Only Stupid People Believe in God or Disagree with Krugman. Given that the Republicans are known as the Stupid Party, perhaps there is some truth to Krugman's view that Republicans (or at least a lot of Republicans) really are stupid.

Whether or not some Republicans are stupid, I contend that Krugman still did not make the case, and that is because he confuses science with opinion. Thus, if someone disagrees with him -- and everyone knows that Krugman claims to base his opinions solely on science -- then that person is an ignorant know-nothing.

I will go further. Krugman is not speaking so much of science here, but rather opinions from people who are employed as scientists. What he is claiming is a non sequitur: if one disagrees with his views, then one rejects the ENTIRETY of the Scientific Method.

The two subjects he identifies are the Theory of Evolution and whether or not humans are destroying the planet by causing global warming. It is Krugman's belief that if one does not hold to exactly the same viewpoints he holds, then one is beyond reproach and is utterly ignorant and should be banished from polite or at least intelligent company. He writes:

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

Now, I don't want to get into the deeper arguments on evolution or climate change, but want to point out that when Krugman speaks of evolution, he is saying that all present and complex life forms all evolved from a simple form of life, the amoebae. (Krugman does not tell us how the amoebae found its way to existence, and since there can't possibly be a God -- such thoughts are not permissible at places like Princeton -- well, the cell just must have appeared on its own.)

There is plenty of scientific debate on the evolution of cells, but what Krugman is saying is that one must accept EVERYTHING on one side, proven or not, or one is an ignorant know-nothing. And God help any scientist who might use something like probabilities in the discussion, as the use of the scientific method is acceptable ONLY if one first accepts the view that all things complex evolved out of things simple.

As for global warming, Krugman is saying that unless one believes that a trace gas (carbon dioxide occupies about 0.037 percent of the atmosphere) is responsible for all changes in climage, one is an ignorant know-nothing. Furthermore, Krugman does not argue the science, but rather says that because the National Academy of Sciences is on the CO2 bandwagon, we should be, too.

You will have to excuse my skepticism here, as I wrote part of my doctoral dissertation on acid rain, including the predictions and what actually happened. Yes, the National Academy of Science in the early 1980s made a wild prediction (there would be a ten-fold increase in the number of acidified lakes in the USA because of acid rain) which did not come true, not even close.

In fact, it turned out that as the scientific theories of lake acidification evolved, so-called acid rain played no role at all. The composition of the watersheds and land-use patterns turned out to be the key predictor, something the Environmental Protection Agency tried to suppress by threatening scientists who came up with conclusions the EPA didn't like.

However, the politically-correct viewpoint (one that I am sure Krugman would defend to the death) was that acid rain was doing a number of terrible things, and if a scientist, after engaging in legitimate research, found out things that veered from the politically-acceptable view, then that person was not engaging in real science. Like it or not, with most scientific research on climate and the environment funded by governments, the political pressures are going to be there for people to reach conclusions of the Krugmans of this world.

Keep in mind that climate change has occurred for millenia. Interestingly, the so-called hockey stick managed to eliminate both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age through mathematical manipulation. (But, if one's manipulations fit the politically-correct zeitgeist, then that is OK.) Of course, any view that the sun might play a role cannot be accepted because not even Paul Krugman is going to advocate that Congress pass laws to deal with the sun.

A world-class soil scientist once told me that the heart of the scientific method is "skepticism." Unfortunately, skepticism no longer is allowed once politics becomes the norm, and anyone who might employ the scientific method and reach conclusions that disagree with viewpoints that Krugman holds is "anti-science."

Krugman's Climate of Dishonesty

In reading Paul Krugman's column today on the Arizona shooting -- a very predictable column, I might add, given Krugman's political views -- I am struck by the fact that we have a mathematical economist who adds 2 + 2 and gets 5. Not only is his theme dishonest, but he also goes about presenting the information dishonestly.

When he first heard about what happened, Krugman said the following on his blog Saturday:

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

So, he right away assumes that some Angry White Male Who Belonged To The Tea Party carried out the shooting. Furthermore, he claims that the ONLY angry rhetoric directed against her was coming from the right, yet he apparently ignores (and one wonders if he is doing this on purpose) the hateful rhetoric that was directed at her from the Daily Kos, which is a hard-left Democrat website that adores Paul Krugman.

(The post quickly was taken down after the shooting, as the Kos wanted to make sure that Sarah Palin received the blame. I checked the site this morning and there is no reference to anything the Daily Kos had from its own side, and it once again is blaming Palin and the Usual Suspects from the Tea Party, as well as a quote from Krugman. Gabrielle Giffords, it seems, committed the sin of voting for John Lewis for speaker instead of Nancy Pelosi. Obviously, according to the Daily Kos, that alone was worthy of death.)

Since the shooting occurred, we have found much more information about the shooter, Jared Lougher. Apparently, the guy was somewhat a person of the Left, and it is quite doubtful that Sarah Palin influenced him to do anything. He apparently is someone whose behavior has been growing increasingly bizarre and disruptive. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that he has had nothing to do with the Tea Party or any of the other protest movements.

All of that information is known to us, and it was available when Krugman wrote today's column. Thus, I come down hard on him precisely because he purposely ignores the facts. Krugman writes:

...there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate. (Emphasis mine)

In other words, after first having claimed Saturday that the shooter MUST have been tied to the Tea Party, Krugman now ignores the guy's background and life circumstances. Why? It does not fit Krugman's narrative.

As one who does not watch television -- and especially the political talk shows like those on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and the ones on the right on Fox News -- I have no idea if the rhetoric is comparable or not between right and left. However, when I read the following from Krugman, I have to wonder how a Nobel Prize winning economist can stretch language with a straight face:

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

Now, I really doubt that either Beck or O'Reilly (neither of whom I respect) have called for political opponents to be shot and killed. I HAVE seen (on YouTube) some of the hateful rhetoric that Olbermann has directed toward Ron Paul. On this segment, he accuses Paul of treason, which carries the death penalty. No doubt, if O'Reilly were to accuse someone of treason, Krugman would claim he was trying to have that person killed.

In other words, with Krugman it is "heads I win, tails you lose." Anyone who disagrees with Krugman and his friends and makes that disagreement public is a traitor and an inciter of hate. Now, this is the same Paul Krugman who has smeared other economists with hateful rhetoric, calling them "zombies." (Robert Murphy lays out the Krugman theme in this insightful article.)

So, in the end, Krugman jumps into what clearly is a tragic situation and throws around partisan rhetoric, makes up his own narrative, and ignores the facts. Had Sarah Palin written that Rep. Giffords was "dead to me" on her website, would Krugman have pretended she never said anything like that?

Right. Years ago, I wrote that Krugman was not an economist, but rather was a political operative. I have not changed that opinion a whit, and Krugman's column today proves my point.

It is one thing for political hacks like Olbermann or Beck or even the people at the Daily Kos to frame everything that happens in political terms and ignore pertinent facts. I expect that kind of behavior from them.

However, when a decorated academic economist does the same -- and calls it careful analysis -- I draw the line. I NEVER have seen or heard hateful rhetoric coming from other Nobel Prize winning economists, ever, and I have spent hours with many of them. Yet, with Paul Krugman, it seems that all we get is hate and name-calling and political talking points. I will let you be the judge of that kind of behavior.

Paul Krugman and Comment Policies

A lot of fuss has been stirred up this past week with Paul Krugman's announcement that he was changing the comment policies on his blog to limiting the comments to three inches. After the hostile response by some, Krugman basically said: "Hey, it's my blog and if you don't like it, you can lump it."

A number of people have sent me the recent American Thinker piece on this change in policy, although I must say that I am reluctant to embrace the claim that Krugman is doing this out of sheer paranoia. I don't know, and, frankly, since I rarely write in his comments section, I don't care what his comment policies might be.

On a number of occasions, my own comments section has featured duels between people who agree with Krugman and those who disagree, and once in a while I join in the discussion, although I usually limit my comments to the actual blog post. I figure that the comments section is for people to express their own views and, frankly, to have fun.

So, unless a comment is obscene or potentially libelous, I tend to let it stand, as I am not wounded by disagreements nor do I worry that some people think I am an idiot. When one makes public statements, as I have done, people will disagree and that is OK.

I do think that Krugman has seemed angrier on his blog lately, and certainly has been even more partisan. As an academic economist, I tend to believe that economists should be above political rhetoric, even if we can support political candidates. My hope is that my blog or other articles do not degenerate into political talking points, and all too often, I believe Krugman does just that.

Economists have a lot of intellectual weapons, and I don't believe that we have to let our analysis degenerate into ______ good and _______ bad. Unfortunately, I believe that is just what Krugman has done, and his constant blame of all our current problems on Goldstein, er, Republicans, is just silly and beneath his stature as a Nobel laureate.