Paul Krugman loves to buttress his commentary with statistics and charts. But very often his own data don’t agree with the story he’s selling. Krugman’s eyes can only see what his Keynesian theory will allow. FULL ARTICLE by Robert Murphy
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12274/krugmans-hoover-history/
Krugman’s Hoover History
Previous post: Healthcare Legislation and a Potential Ron Paul Presidential Run in 2012
Next post: The Second Austrian Revival
{ 14 comments }
Krugman really must think his readers are stupid. Well, if they listen, they probably are. That growth in government spending is hilarious. Does he not realize that people can actually read the X and Y axis on the graph? How can he say that state government spending didn’t budge much? I’m staring right at it, the only time it didn’t budge was in early 2005! The chart is a year over year rate increase or decrease. State spending has incresed every year since 1999 on that chart, even when tax reciepts have been falling, yet Krugman tries to tell us that a 2.5% spending increase in 2009 is not budging.
Krugman is a master at lying. He can place an apple in front of one of his followers and claim it to be an elephant without any debate, and the followers will actually buy into it.
Not so much stupid, but ignorant. Your apple/elephant statement is dead on. Krugman knows that his audience is comprised mostly of the liberal/progressive types, and are therefore highly ignorant of economics.
On a certain level, I admire his complete lack of fear – he will throw out any statement that he feels like saying, with full knowledge that his fans will accept it as fact. And they will also shout down those who dare to argue against Krugman (see the comments on his blog).
Good commentary. Unfortunately, Krugman is so shameless that no matter what numbers are put in front of him, he sticks to the Keynesian narrative. On top of that, if you publicly disagree, then that means you are a racist, hate the poor, want people out of work, want people to get sick and die, and want other horrible things.
Just a hunch, but to me this strange economy with the truth is explained by the bizarre column in which Krugman defended a fellow columnist who was exposed for accepting secret, er, pecuniary considerations, in exchange for columns favorable to the Obama regime.
Everything is out there in plain sight, but after a lifetime of brainwashing it’s difficult for many people to get a handle on the elementary logic needed to put two and two together and then reject the two plus two equals five pronouncements of Krugman. I suppose that there are literally millions of people out there, mostly oldsters and government dependents of all kinds, who still only read newspapers and watch TV and never read news online let alone read the comments in which shills and con artists are exposed. Not coincidentally, these are also the most fanatical voters.
I saw Krugman on a YouTube clip (talking about China’s trade surplus etc.). Now I’ve never met the man, but the way his eyes dart all over the place convinced me he is start raving mad.
Perhaps that explains everything.
Robert has a way of elucidating the critical points that members of the Keynesian paradigm folly upon, and I always enjoy the manner in which he concludes that Austrian economics accounts for the evidence in a total and comprehensible manner. But of course, this requires more and deeper thought than Krugman’s assertions do, which I’m guessing is why Krugman gets more spotlight.
Thank you for your intellectual contributions. I have learned more from this website than I did from the majority of my economics professors at Penn State.
If only it were possible to distil Austrian economics down to simple catch phrases.
“If only it were possible to distil Austrian economics down to simple catch phrases.
Why not?? I like the idea. Maybe we can start a fire like the Youtube hayek/kaynes rap..
I loved the ” believing is seeing” statment in the article- never heard that before and it really made me stop and think
My catch phrase for the day is “F” kaynes and krugman
Bob and Bill,
Does Krugman ever directly refute either one of you, your critiques of his ideas?
How about a chart comparing Krugman’s own personal finances with his commentaries? I bet we’ll be able to see a correlation showing that more he BS’s the better he does. Maybe his latest rantings will get him another NOBEL in the next few years.
As Orwell wrote, those in positions of power can believe two contradictory ideas at the same time. Success in the political sphere can have that doublethink effect.
You can’t get two Nobels in the same field. There was a recent profile of Krugman in the New Yorker (as well as his economist wife, who is much more of a “liberal” macroeconomics type). According to that, Krugman wasn’t enthusiastic at the Nobel – in fact, called it a “distraction” at a crucial time in his attempts to straighten out the Obama campaign.
Krugman isn’t really a bad guy, but like all “sycophants of the bourgeoisie”, his pandering to the monied elites gets worse and worse as he gains in status and reputation.
Although this is a sectarian, “Austrian” website, it’s good to keep a broader “professional” attitude about our fellow economists. Krugman was, for many years, a fresh, radical voice – pretty much an outsider to the status-quo Keynesian establishment. At least, he deserves better than some of these comments questioning his motives and intellectual honesty. Much of what is objected to, here, is probably his wife’s doing, from what I learned in the New Yorker profile.
Well, they could always award him the peace prize.
Have you actually read his columns? I have. Nothing he says makes any sense and sounds like pure b to me. Most people are clueless to economics. But when someone is calling for more counterfeit money into the mix it doesn’t take a economic genus to see there’s something fishy there. Otherwise, why not let me run off a few trillion on my little ink jet printer. All we need is enough zeros. If anyone can see how that would be harmful and dishonest, then anyone calling for the banking criminals to do essentially the same thing has to be dishonest or so completely stupid that he can’t tell right from wrong anyway.
Besides, did you ever see the picture of him after he won the Nobel. The smirk on his face was worth a thousand insults. And if it’s really his wife doing the barking, then he’s guilty of even more dishonesty.
The 1920s Fed inflated money and credit. And the Prez controls the Fed.
If Krugman owned a credit card company, I wonder if he would follow his own advice when his customers repeatedly asked for increased credit limits because they couldn’t control their spending habit?
Comments on this entry are closed.