In my Krugman-in-Wonderland post today, I point out the fallacies inherent in Paul Krugman’s latest jihad against China. Krugman’s fallacies are quite basic, something that a person familiar with Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt can point out.
Update: I also have this response to Krugman’s blog post on stagflation.
{ 5 comments }
A propagandist has to do something! It is his ‘job’ to propagandize the populace and since there is no underlying logic behind Keynesian quackery Krugman has to continually twist and stretch to generate his required amount of propaganda. It matters not if it is nonsense because it is his expert nonsense.
It is often noted that Krugman is more of a politician than an Economist. I found this interesting, from the Wikipedia page of the ultimate economist-disguised politician, John Kenneth Galbraith; from the criticism section:
“Paul Krugman, the influential, Nobel Prize–winning Princeton University professor and New York Times op-ed columnist, has denigrated Galbraith’s stature as an economist. In Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations, he calls Galbraith a “policy entrepreneur” – an economist who writes solely for the public, as opposed to one who writes for other professors, and who therefore makes unwarranted diagnoses and offers over-simplistic answers to complex economic problems. He asserts that Galbraith was never taken seriously by fellow academics, who viewed him as more of a “media personality”. For example, Krugman believes that Galbraith’s work The New Industrial State is not considered to be “real economic theory”, and that Economics in Perspective is “remarkably ill-informed”.[36] However, acknowledging the alleged damage caused by the George W. Bush administration, Krugman now says of his polemics in the 1990s, “I was wrong obviously. If I’d understood where politics would be now, it would have been quite different.”
“However, acknowledging the alleged damage caused by the George W. Bush administration, Krugman now says of his polemics in the 1990s, “I was wrong obviously. If I’d understood where politics would be now, it would have been quite different.”
Wow! Nice find, Sean!
How am I just now seeing Mr. Anderson’s site for the first time? This is awesome!
Is the use of China not the same Statist use of an invented enemy that always has been and always will be used to justify governmental actions against its own citizens?
Comments on this entry are closed.