Krugman slips up and let's his true colors shine through

[berni_mccoy]

From Krugman's latest bloviation, a hidden apology and a hidden insult (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1)

"The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America’s reputation, an asset we’ve lost just when we, and the world, need it most."

I'd be inclined to agree, except that he's talking about the current crisis and "just lost" our credibility. Note that he only mentions Obama throughout the article and not anything Bush did that caused the current crisis. He doesn't mention Bush's incredible spending, waste of taxpayer money on Big Oil and outsourcing, off-shoring companies or that we lost all credibility with anyone in the world when we went to war with Iraq over mythological WMDs and made-up links with Al Qaeda.

And here is where his true colors show through. At first he says "President Obama got it right" by saying we need cooperation by all parties (which goes against everything Krugman has been saying up to this point; until this column Krugman has been pushing for a plan that would ram-rod passed the will of the GOP and would never pass in the Congress).

But then, he makes this claim:

"And by rights this week’s G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when — as in this case — the Americans are right."

He disrespects Obama by stripping his title and referring to him as a lecturing American official. I guess it was too much for Krugman to admit President Obama was right all along.

[AndyA]

1. Lost just or just lost?

There is a difference.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Not in this case. The meaning is the same.

[roguevalley]

47. I guess we get to critique Mr. Krugman's shoes next. Sigh.

[NJmaverick]

3. If you go back and study his other articles, you will find simialar tells

that betray his lack of intellectual honesty

[depakid]

7. Oh good grief, get off your obsession

The article merely states the obvious and chides European governments to take what he considers appropriate (and coordinated) steps to ward off a deepening recession.

[NJmaverick]

8. Not an obsession, more like ahead of the curve

more and more people are starting to see Krugman's true intentions. I was very impressed by the excellent article over at Huffington Post on this topic.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

13. Ah I see you offer up personal attacks in the same vein as your hero Krugman

birds of a feather I guess...

[depakid]

20. Krugman is what he is- some takes I agree with- others not so much

Same with any other economist who writes publically.

The only difference with Krugman is that he writes more often and has a higher profile- which means obsessives tend to focus on him rather than others who have the same or similar takes.

[NJmaverick]

21. Are you talking about Krugman's obsession with Obama

Or are you breaking the rules and calling me an obsessive???????

[depakid]

25. Obsession is what it is and people tend to recognize it when they see it

And no, LOL Krugman's not obsessed with the Obama- who just just happens to have been a leading candidate advocated and now the President who ultimately sets policy.

[NJmaverick]

29. You have a similar style to Paul Krugman, I think that's telling

[girl gone mad]

48. OHMIGOD!!!1!! You solved the DUVinci code!!1!

depakid = Paul Krugman.

And it's been right there in front of our eyes this whole time.

[Bunny]

65. .

:spray:

[Mithreal]

72. No way! I was thinking the code too as I read it. Weirdness. nt

[Reterr]

66. LOL! Do you do stand-up?

Actually no, I guess accidental comedy is more your thing. Hilarious act in any case :thumbsup:!

Yeah depakid's style is more like Krugman's than that of many here in that he doesn't sound like an illiterate, Bush-like Freeper.

[Telly Savalas]

53. Isn't it obvious the Krugman anticipated the Obama presidency back in the early 90s

and spent the last decade and a half pretending to be a liberal so that his completely unfounded criticisms of the president would carry more weight? How can you not see that?

[chimpymustgo]

32. If you read his actual column, you will find the OP has either misunderstood or misrepresented it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8305325&mesg_id=8305467

21. THat's NOT what Krugman says. Have you not READ that thing YET???

Krugman says Obama was right to call for a global, coordinated response. But he worries that we have squandered our "financial credibility". by preaching to Europe (and other countries and continents) that our "free market way" is the best/only way to go. Now that that's failed, Krugman asks, will G-20, et.al.line up to take our advice?

Krugman still thinks the bailout plan is NOT going to work.

[NJmaverick]

35. Krugman took an indirect swipe

this article spent a great deal of time bashing Lawrence Summers. I wonder how Krugman's 2000 article singing Enron's praises holds up to the test of time.

Beyond his swipes, it seems the rest of the article focuses on an area that Krugman lacks expertise, international politics.

[chimpymustgo]

41. LOL. Just a Nobel Prize On international trade patterns - which ARE, of course predicated on -

- among others things - INTERNATIONAL POLITICS.

-snip-

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity".<3><4> Krugman is known in academia for his work in international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance.

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman


LET IT THE FUCK GO. Krugman knows his stuff, and he - like MANY renowned economists - don't like the bailout plan. He's just not writing about it today.

[NJmaverick]

46. They list everything and anything international BUT politics

So I don't see how wikipedia disputes my point.

Krugman is the guy that needs to let go. It makes little sence that he attacked Summer for correctly pointing out the need for "“well-capitalized and supervised banks” and reliable, transparent corporate accounting."

[Bjorn Against]

68. I know this may seem complicated to you but economics are closely tied to politics.

But if you had even a fraction of 1% of Krugman's knowledge of economics and politics you would know that.

[woolldog]

82. eonomic theory has nothing to do with politics.

that's absurd.

[Bjorn Against]

86. Nothing to do with politics? Economic systems are regulated by government, economics is politics.

[woolldog]

88. No it's not.

You're just being rhetorical.

[Bjorn Against]

89. So I guess I am just imagining all those laws that govern our financial systems.

Do you honestly believe that politics are not involved in determining whether we have a socialist economy or a capitalist economy? It is not as if the economy simply runs itself, if you don't think politics plays a role in the economy you seriously need to educate yourself.

[Zodiak]

44. I have noticed that the OP's OPs do have that common thread

Even though they are written at length, they often do not adequately reflect the sources' theses and use a lot of selective out-of-context quoting to "prove" a seemingly pre-conceived notion.

I really wish that this were not the case, but sadly it is. Intellectual honesty is hard to find on the internet, but I am frankly shocked to see so much of it come from fellow DUers in recent months.

[Maven]

4. Oh, FFS

For the last time, it's acceptable to refer to the president as "Mr." Whoever. Bush was called "Mr. Bush" countless times. It's not disrespectful especially considering HE ALREADY CALLED HIM "PRESIDENT OBAMA."

"He disrespects Obama by stripping his title and referring to him as a lecturing American official. I guess it was too much for Krugman to admit President Obama was right all along."

Frankly, you're trying too hard here to find something to smear Krugman with. Just stop it--you look childish.

[berni_mccoy]

9. So why did Krugman call him President Obama twice and then the last time

when juxtaposed with his admission that Obama was right, did he change it?

[Maven]

11. NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL

An editor might have changed it. Sometimes you vary the verbiage to improve word flow.

This is ridiculous.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Oh, I forgot, It's a SIN to criticize Krugman here.

[NJmaverick]

15. Sadly you are not exaggerating or engaging in hyperbole

[Maven]

16. Actually, destroying his character is now a part-time job for many since he had the temerity

to criticize some of Obama's policies.

And your thread is only one of the latest, weakest attempts. Especially since you're citing an article in which Krugman PRAISES Obama for being "exactly right!"

Pathetic.

[girl gone mad]

36. Are you kidding?

You asked a question and got a perfectly valid response.

It's very likely an editor changed the copy to "Mr." to avoid repetition since "President" had already been used twice.

This thread is very entertaining, intentionally or not.

[bertman]

42. Thank you, Maven!!

[Born_A_Truman]

45. I believe that is the style of the NYT

They use titles then "Mr", etc all the time.

[Forkboy]

The Op looks like a fucking moron, to be blunt.

[lyonn]

5. It seems that gold medal went to his head. nt

[MadHound]

6. I think that you've spent too much time trying to read tea leaves,

And now you are seeing things that aren't there in everything that you look at.

[burythehatchet]

14. Did u no he compard Obama support hose to NIXON's PEEPUL?

[rvablue]

17. You don't know what you are talking about. Go pick up a style book and chill.

The AP Style Guide -- the bible of reporters and copy editors -- dictates that the first reference of the President should be "President Obama" and all following references should either be "Mr. Obama" or the "The President."

And FYI, there will by many, many American officials meeting and working behind the scenes, while the different national leaders are in front of the cameras.

There are legitimate things to be concerned about. These two references in the Krugman blog post are not.

[berni_mccoy]

19. So why does Krugman use President Obama twice before that?

[KittyWampus]

26. the whole point of this assinine thread is your bitching Krugman doesn't say "President" but you jus

just admit he uses it.

[berni_mccoy]

27. Krazy about Krugman are you? If you read my post, you'd realize he drops it in one specific place.

[girl gone mad]

39. Your question has now been answered twice.

[Demit]

18. He doesn't mention that the lost credibility is Bush's fault because it's BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS

Krugman's's only been harping on the various Bush disasters for years, to the point that he's been called The Shrill One by the establishment press. What, he's supposed to recap the story of the crisis for you in every column he writes? Your misreading of the situation, and of Krugman's alleged ulterior motives, is ridiculous.

[Political Tiger]

22. During the primaries he often referred to Barack Obama as "BO"

yet I never saw him refer to any other candidate by his or her initials. Calling Obama "BO" was a favorite of the Freepers and the No Quarters crowd.

[ArchieStone1]

33. how often?

?

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. Can We Have This Whole Presidential Forum Closed

If it invites such worthless tinfoil hyper-partisan ravings like this (Ohmehgaw! He used "President Obama" twice and "Mr. Obama" once!) then it obviously serves no purpose.

[berni_mccoy]

24. I'm ok with that if it will shut up all the Krugman maniacs.

[kiva]

34. No, no, no! Then it will just spread throughout

the rest of the forums, and we will be dodging this "OMG he didn't capitalize the P in president, he hates Obama!!!!!!!" all over the board.

[rucky]

37. And release them into the General population?@!

are you nuts?

[girl gone mad]

40. But it's so darn trollicious!

[Sparkly]

28. Oh fer cryin' out loud.

This is ridiculous.

Agree or disagree with Krugman, but this is made-up nonsense.

[ArchieStone1]

30. where's the apology? where's the insult?

I read the column and failed to spot an apology or an insult.

[rucky]

38. It's in there

you just need to know numerology to spot it.

[Life Long Dem]

31. Who keeps pushing Krugman?

He's not on our side, his slip is showing!

[Phx_Dem]

43. Krugman's a dick and his little tirade has been tiresome.

It sounds like he just can't accept the fact that the administration doesn't share his "NATIONALIZE ALL BANKS!" viewpoint.

[flyarm]

49. maybe we all need to be paying attention to what is going on instead of worrying about a Mr here or

there..stuff that effects all our lives and the lives of our children and children of the future of this country instead of this petty crap..ya think????????

Obama and Geithner demand no "evidence of change" from the world of finance capitalism ,they do not ask for any resignations. But GM?? where thousands of Jobs lay on the line.......you betcha!! Obama asked for the removal of GM head Rick Wagoner.

But Edward Liddy, the CEO of AIG, still has a job, and he probably will keep that job as long as wants..and sip martini's from his yacht ..laughing at us all..

Obama will not reinstitute Glass/Steagall, he won't break up the big banks, he won't investigate fraud, he won't limit leverage, but the UAW jobs??..and contracts???..well fuck you, is what you get ...


Wall Street. The financial "industry" has blown right through the $700 billion TARP funds in a few months..
GM lost $82 billion over the past four years...yes alot of money but no where near 700 billion! And that would be 700 billion of our tax payers dollars! and Money from our childrens - children's piggy banks! Many of whom are not born yet.

Hmm ..and we have an adminstration willing to keep the money flowing to what entity??????????

do read Joan Walsh..at Salon..she is getting it..finally!!

//www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/

snip:

Meanwhile, Newsweek is headlining its current cover "Obama Is Wrong" -- but this time it uses Paul Krugman, not the normal cast of village idiots, to indict the new Democratic president. What a novel idea. I had to suppress my instinct to defend Obama -- Krugman doesn't think Obama is wrong about everything, folks -- because I think Krugman is alarmingly right on the key issue at hand: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's subsidizing private investors to take can't-lose "risks" and buy up the banks' "legacy assets." (Don't call them toxic!)

Krugman has colorfully labeled the plan "cash for trash," and on Sunday, he went head-to-head (sort of ) with Geithner, appearing after the treasury secretary on ABC's "This Week" and deriding his "plan to rearrange the deck chairs and hope that that keeps us from hitting the iceberg." For his part, Geithner insisted, "To get out of this we need banks to take a chance on businesses, to take risks again," and argued it was better for taxpayers to have private firms bear at least some of the cost of the bank overhaul (as opposed to Krugman's proposal that the government temporarily nationalize troubled banks).

Krugman isn't the only smart person raising these concerns. If Evan Thomas' smug tone in the Newsweek piece turns you off, take the time to read Simon Johnson's terrifying Atlantic piece, "The Quiet Coup," which lays out the foundation of our current mess and then comes to similar conclusions as Krugman about the drastic steps needed to recover: The government must take over unhealthy banks, dramatically restructure them, save the ones that can be saved and later sell them back to private investors. (The piece was apparently written before Geithner's plan was released so it doesn't comment on it directly.)


snip:

A few Democratic heroes spoke against the bill -- North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan and, not surprisingly, the late Paul Wellstone. ''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' Dorgan said presciently.
The article confirmed a feeling I've had for a while, that the Democrats can't get us out from under this mess until they are forced to reckon with their role in creating it. Every time I see Chuck Schumer on television pretending to be a populist scourge of Wall Street, I remember his role in blocking higher taxes for hedge fund managers and repealing Glass-Steagall. I can't help thinking that Tim Geithner is too close to the industry that took over -- and took down -- the economy to tame it. A large part of the Democrats' resurgence in the last four years, ironically, has been its success raising money from Wall Street, which undermines its populist street cred at a time like this. Fortunately for the party, Republicans are just as compromised, so it's not too late to for Democrats to take leadership in bucking the financial oligarchy and develop real solutions to the financial crisis.

But if you believe Simon Johnson, it may almost be too late. That's what we should be debating, not Obama's teleprompter use, or whether Paul Krugman has it in for the new president. So I'm glad to be back from vacation, really; we have a lot of work to do.

[intheflow]

50. Unlike royalty, our highest leader is still a regular citizen.

Therefore it is equally valid and respectful to refer to him as President Obama, Mr. Obama, or Mr. President. There was a huge debate about this when Washington assumed the presidency. Personally, I'm proud that our leader can be referred to as plain ol' Mr. Obama. It is the ultimate proof that no one ranks above anyone else in our civilian society. (At least in theory.)

[Bunny]

51. I want to marry Paul Krugman and bear his children.

[Richardo]

54. !!

:rofl:

I'll bring up your proposal at the next Beards-r-Us meeting :D

[Bunny]

55. .

;)

[girl gone mad]

56. He's already married.

You'll have to settle for Roubini, but take a number.

[Bunny]

59. It's Krugman or nothing.

Sorry, Roubini.

[ErinBerin84]

57. lol

I thought I was the only one with those secret Krugman thoughts.


In terms of this op, I think Krugman means well (and I usually think he is right about most things). I think his policy differences with Obama are genuine, though it did sort of sound in Newsweek like some of it might be personal (that might be more the fault of Newsweek and the quotes they chose to feature), I don't think his criticism stems from that. Am I making sense?

[Bunny]

58. You are making perfect sense, unlike a lot of other people around here.

Don't hesitate to embrace your inner Krugman fantasy. It's OK.

[TexasObserver]

52. Krugman is drunk with the adoration of his recent converts.

Anyone who has read Krugman for years knows he's a pissy guy who is great at criticism, but you'd never put him in charge of anything important. He's a gadfly, and he's occasionally right about something.

[JayMusgrove]

60. I agree, he's an academic, not a real economic expert. We know...

many wonderful academics, they warn us of all sorts of problems, they do good research, they point out pitfalls, but they don't ever run for office, they don't ever have to be held accountable when they are wrong. And they are often wrong.

In short, they want a perfect world, and are obsessive, for them, the "perfect" is the enemy of the good.

Let's make sure we hold him accountable if he's wrong about Obama's plans for the economy.

[depakid]

61. "not a real economic expert"

:rofl:

One thing I'll say for sure, is that wheneveer I start thinking that progressives (or Democrats as the case may be) are inherently more intelligent, all I have to do is read one of these threads and it cures me of that notion straight away. In that sense they're quite useful in mainting one's perspective.

[Reterr]

64. At the end of the day some of the partisans here seem largely as scared of education/intellect

as the average Freeper.

Oh noooooess...scary academics.
Dumb bullshit..

[JayMusgrove]

71. Can you name 3 things Krugman has done that make him an economic expert?

You seem to think serious academic research and writing is equivilant to "expertise" in economics.

You are sadly so arrogant, you criticize me without understanding my point, only kinda sorta makes you look a bit STOOOPID...

Economic experts are NOT academic researchers. You seem to think they are synonymous. Guess you're not a language expert, either.

Laugh yourself to sleep with your ignorance. I love it when fools post here and make themselves easy targets.


Tell us what economic expertise Krugman has ever published........this love affair with Krugman is so irrational, I'm waiting to hear when Krugman ever DID anything other than research and book writing and being a perfectionist.

[depakid]

74. Sometimes the irony and projection is just overwhelming

Along with analyzing and predicting in detail the problems that led to the Asian currency crisis (and also the collapse of LTCM) which Gaithner proceeded to http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/obamas-economic-saviour-savaged-as-keating-lets-rip-20090306-8rk7.html?page=-1">royally muck up he was also a member of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Economic_Advisers">The council of Economic Advisors and is a member of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Thirty">The Group of 30.

[flyarm]

85. Geithner also began his career working for Kissinger and then moved onto the CFR!!

Look it up and his dad also worked for the Ford Foundation ..also worked for the Ford Foundation in Indonesia and Obama's mom and his step dad..worked with the dad..look it up!!

Oh and by the way in case you missed it..Obama sent Kissinger to Russia representing his adminstration shortly after Obama took office!!

Kissinger, who was nearly the head of the CFR Whitewash 911 commission before Zelikow was installed to guard the evidence, and protect the guilty (An embarrassing moment for Kissinger came when the 911 “Jersey Girls” questioning the would be Commission head, asked to see his “client List” ) the implication being that Kissinger was representing the Saudis who indirectly were implicated in the 911 attacks.

Ahhh yes the ties that bind..........

Look it up..google is your friend..that is before it is scrubbed!!

Personally I will put my trust in Krugman, he has never given me reason not to!!..Geithner..i would trust him with the dogs poop scoop, but not a dime of my money.

[TexasObserver]

62. Yes, he's an academic. One who lacks real world experience.

If you want to understand economics, ask Warren Buffett, not Paul Krugman.

Krugman is useful on Economic theory, but he's a complete asshat when it comes to practical economics. I recall some here were urging he be named Secretary of Treasury. Paul Krugman couldn't organize a March Madness pool. He's a critic. He's more Roger Ebert than Alexander Hamilton.

[depakid]

67. Nope- he's never worked in government, has he?

Please.

And btw: if you read the Great Unravelling, looking back, you might surprised at the accuracy of his political takes. Granted the time period covered the late 90's and early 00's -so a lot of that was obvious to astute and informed observers

[TexasObserver]

78. No govt experience. "I'm temperamentally unsuited for that kind of role." - Krugman

Unless you want to count that year he spent in the Reagan Administration as a young underling, he has no government experience. He was considered and turned down by Clinton, who recognized him as the gadfly he is.

Krugman is an academic. Always has been, and always will be.

[depakid]

79. I would count that as government experience

And from the way things worked out over the years, too bad Bill wasn't more insightful- and less concerned with pandering to the right (along with many of the Nnew "Democrats"). It's possible- if not probable that had he listened to the likes of Krugman, Reich and other "gadflies} we wouldn't be in this position now.

[TexasObserver]

80. Pure nonsense.

you have no credibility now

[MoonRiver]

63. Thank God for Krugman,

a voice for reason in the wilderness.

[merkins]

69. Big pushback on DU against Krugman going on

They're flying in formation by the looks of it.

[Vattel]

70. My personal favorite of the OP's mistakes:

The OP complains that at first Krugman "says 'President Obama got it right' by saying we need cooperation by all parties (which goes against everything Krugman has been saying up to this point; until this column Krugman has been pushing for a plan that would ram-rod passed the will of the GOP and would never pass in the Congress)."

Of course, Krugman is talking about Obama's saying that we need the cooperation of the major economies, and so Krugman's remarks don't go against his earlier criticisms of Obama for trying to cooperate with the GOP.

What is with all the kooky anti-Krugman stuff today?

[wellst0nev0ter]

73. I Say A Bunch Of Recently Converted Dems

Trying to build up another cult of ideology ala Bush. It's the same barking madness that has poisoned this country for the last 8 years.

And this is me being generous.

[Mithreal]

76. Some may just be immature in their reasoning, critical thinking, or political discussion skills?

The folks that are afraid of a lively debate here and should know better worry me.

[Lilith Velkor]

81. I think you are correct

That explains the familiar stench.

[QC]

91. It also explains the recent phenomena of progressives being red-baited on a progressive board

and the likes of Andrew Sullivan and The New Republic(an) being treated as oracles here.

[Mithreal]

75. Berni, I admire Krugman and the President. Ad hominem is so uncool. nt

[Richardo]

77. Does it hurt when you stretch that much?

Man, you're really looking for something to complain about here.

[Odin2005]

83. Oh fer Christ's sakes.

:banghead:

The OP's trolling is an...

[Forkboy]

84. You should be suspended for a week on principle.

Because thinking this stupid is dangerous to the general public.

[mix]

87. +1 n/t

[QC]

90. This is the stupidest bit of poutrage to come down the pike in years. n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

92. The OP is hilariously goofy in so many ways

The first bit of hilarity is the OP's criticizing Krugman for not writing a 100,000 word backstory to make his point about the G-20.

The second bit of silliness is the whole "hidden" insult thing.

Lastly, the disjointed reasoning and random segways provided me with quite a chuckle.

I wish I had the last three minutes of my life back.