Sometime friend of Dealbreaker 1-2 takes Paul Krugman to task for a recent post. One wonders why the New York Times continues to provide a forum for the man. We have our pet theories about pictures of AOSj, but that's for another time.
Sometime around 5am this morning (sleep is for the weak) I read a week-old post from our favoriteeconomistliberal acolyte, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman. Beginning his career as a caterpillar economist (churning out paper after paper by candlelight from the drafty Princetonian economics basement) he apparently cocooned sometime ago and morphed into a beautiful butterfly (aesthetically pleasing, but lacking substance or utility) for the NYT and democratic party.
Krugman: Sixteen Years (of Intellectual Dishonesty) [1-2]
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:34PM
Khan!!!
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:35PM
20 bucks and a 6pack for the furst to actually read through that crap
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:37PM
Prepare for another wingnut invasion.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:38PM
no one cares, EP. go back to reading Ayn Rand
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:44PM
I am the new Howard Roark!
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:46PM
The gates open and the Lord of Light, SEAN HANNITY comes galloping in, sword held high, cloak waving behind him, as his minions come streaming after in a seemingly endless horde.
VAE VICTIS NYT!
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:46PM
Are you implying that a liberal would use half-truths , or even lies to bolster his/her arguments ?!?!?!?!?
.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:49PM
He gets a forum because he's basically been right for the past 5 years.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 2:53PM
He gets a forum in the same way Maureen Dowd gets a column, they both satisfy the "progessive" mindset of the so to be late (in print) most likely NYT.
Posted by Investorcluzo , Feb 18, 2009 3:03PM
"some time friend"? what gives, 1-2 you and the girls of db on the rocks? I read the return of depression era economics, it's a fast read if nothing else. I wonder what would happen if someone wrote a column with a picture of the s&p (or dow for that matter) since the big "O" was elected...
Posted by Anal_yst , Feb 18, 2009 3:16PM
The way to get ahead as a pundit (or "expert") in modern times is to pick an angle or side of an argument and steadfastly stick to your guns as loudly as possible, despite the mounting pile of seemingly inescapable evidence pointing towards the contrary.
Alas, there isn't much money in journalistic integrity or "responsible punditry" (if such a thing can be said to even exist at all).
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 3:31PM
@11
The voice of reason! Love your comments here as much as on long or short capital.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 3:33PM
EP,
Are you auditioning for a job on Fox Business News?
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 3:36PM
You are all just jealous of the power of the Nobel.
~Jimmy Crack Korn
1993 winner of Nobel Prize for Natgas Basis Trading
East Texas Gas Trader
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 3:53PM
@13. That's good, always seek to delegitimize the messenger. Accuse him/her of being a tool of "Fox." Since Fox is not a legitimate news organization (because it doesn't spout the truths known exclusively to the Left), it also is not a legitimate business news source.
There are only certain legitimate sources for the correct narrative, and you will let us know what they are, and are not.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 4:18PM
1-2's post is pure fantasy. waste of time.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 4:26PM
@15 - guest -
There's a more serious issue here than Fox.
Do you think EP would write such rubbish if "she" had to use her real name in the byline? At least Krugman signs his opinions, even if you (guest @15), 1-2, and EP think they are not worth much.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 4:43PM
@17, do you think Krugman would give us all that guff about Kenysian economics if he had to site to an empirical study which supports his proposition?
Probably not, since none exist.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 4:47PM
1-2 is a liar. The growth rates are actually as follows:
Ike: -0.26%
JFK/LBJ: 0.31%
NixonFord: -0.15%
Carter: 1.03%
Reagan: 0.63%
GHWB: -0.33%
Clinton: 0.59%
GWB: -1.3%
That's an overall net positive for Democrats. Of course, you can see where 1-2 is lying right on his chart, where he seems to think Jimmy Carter was in the White house from '79-'83 and Dubya didn't take office until 2003. Kinda weird he would want to move the numbers like that, don't you think?
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 4:48PM
@13 - no way! EP isn't worthy of Fox Business News but this guy is: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/the-ten-cannots
unbelievable.
Posted by Anal_yst , Feb 18, 2009 4:53PM
@19
1-2 allowed a 2-year lag for policy implementation/adoption, which reflects the relatively widely-supported fact that the effects of a decision or action taken by President @ T-zero don't start to show up in any meaningful way until a year or two down the road.
1-2 also noted this in the graphic, although apparently you missed it.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 5:20PM
So Obama will get that same 2 year break, right? Not in EP's little brain, he won't. And what's so magical about 2 years? Make it 22 months, 13 days, 12 hours and 34 minutes.
Posted by Equity Private , Feb 18, 2009 5:24PM
"EP,
Are you auditioning for a job on Fox Business News?"
I have declined two interviews for Fox, actually.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 5:30PM
@18
I don't know what guff you are talking about specifically, but hey, they may let you publish your dissertation here.
Take it up with Krugman, he might give you the time of day.
Posted by onetwo , Feb 18, 2009 5:50PM
@22 - nice mixd attack there. I especially liked how, since you couldn't actually come up with an economic reason my logic was faulty for t+2 you turned it into an argument against EP. Smooth.
And, just a question, how long is it supposed to be before >2/3 of the largest spending bill ever (and the first economic policy decision of the new president) supposed to actually be airdropped unto the masses? Oh, yea, two years. Funny.
Posted by trojan , Feb 18, 2009 5:57PM
bhagwati: market distortions tied to 1) domestic or 2) external factors may allow for a departure from free trade principles for a limited period.
see bhagwait-ramaswami analysis
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 6:13PM
@23
You can't go on the TV. If you do you would have to appear as a black silhouette (horror!) and your voice through a vocoder.
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 7:18PM
Not sure who I despise more, Krugman (the gay Princeton nerd) or Franks (the gay Congressman-boy toy).
Posted by guest , Feb 18, 2009 7:32PM
Two year lag for Presidential policies to take effect? That's ridiculous. The '82 recession was a self-created thing by Volker to stem inflation... that has NOTHING to do with Carter. The dot-com bust can be somewhat laid on Clinton, but did Dubya jump into office and react th same way Obama's reacting now? I would tend to give a 6 to 9 month lag and a year at most. Two years is ridiculous.
Posted by Novice , Feb 18, 2009 8:31PM
@22
a) "cite"
b) You're an idiot. Make sure to attend past the fourth week of Intro to Macro the next time you have a chance. Or better, take an upper-div course.