Krugman: "in 2008 the Wall Street Journal ... knew – knew – that there was no housing bubble...

[pampango]

People aren’t very receptive to evidence if it doesn’t come from a member of their cultural community. This has been blindingly obvious these past few years.

Consider what the different sides in economic debate have been predicting these past six or seven years. If you got your views from, say, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, you knew – knew – that there was no housing bubble, that America in 2008 wasn’t in recession, that budget deficits would send interest rates sky-high, that the Fed’s expansion of its balance sheet would produce huge inflation, that austerity policies would lead to economic expansion.

That’s quite a record. And yet I’m well aware that many people – including people with real money at stake – consider the WSJ a reliable source and people like, well, me flaky and unbelievable. Much of this is politics, of course, but that’s intertwined with culture: the kind of people who turn to the WSJ, or right-wing investment sites can clearly see that I’m a latte-sipping liberal who probably favors gay rights and doesn’t worship the financially successful (I actually prefer good filter coffee, black, but that’s otherwise accurate), and just not part of their tribe.

I suppose that in my quest to improve policy and understanding I should be trying to fit in better – lose the beard, learn to play golf, start using “impact” as a verb. But I probably couldn’t pull it off even if I tried. And as a result there will always be a large group of people who will never be moved by any evidence I present.

Actually, I had a wonderful, in a way, piece of correspondence today; the correspondent had read End this Depression Now!, and was having trouble finding any instances where I presented facts deceptively to support my ideological agenda. Could I please help him locate the places in the book where I do that?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/economic-tribalism/

[rgbecker]

1. The best comment left for Krugman:

"The Republicans are sofa king stupid."

[Honeycombe8]

2. Interesting. I did not know this about the WSJ. nt

[xchrom]

3. Du rec. Nt

[Scuba]

4. When you get your opinions straight from Rupert, they're guaranteed to be wrong for America.

[lunatica]

5. "falcon liar"

LOL!

But I can't figure out what "fall issue" is though.

hint: you have to read all the way to the end where Krugman adds some updates.

[RoseMead]

8. I think

"fall issue yet" = "full of shit"

Say it all together, and pretend you're from one of those areas of the country where the phrase "of shit" is made up of three or more syllables.

[Nay]

9. I *think* it means "full of sh*t," but I'm not sure...

[jwirr]

6. I like Paul Krugman just as he is - intelligent, honest, bearded and liberal. Thank you Paul for

standing firm on your principles.

[edhopper]

7. The WSJ

was always known to have a very right wing Op/Ed page while maintaining a good, unbiased News division.
Since Murdock bought the paper the News division has become highly suspect and it's Foxification is apparent.

[AlbertCat]

10. The Laffer Curve

Anyone still believing the ironically named "Laffer Curve"... or as it is also known:"Trickle Down Economics"... is as deluded as a fundegelical. Indeed, it is not an economic model to follow, but a cult. For the past 30 years it has been shown to simply not work or even be part of the real world. But like a religion, fervently believing in something that has been repeatedly and regularly proven obviously wrong is a badge of honor! Like the 2nd coming, or the end of times, when it's supposed to arrive.... and doesn't, it's just because it hasn't arrived YET... even though it was supposed to last week, or something. The economic boom of the Laffer curve is always just around the corner!

[Marr]

13. Very true. I think that's one of the reasons that evangelicals are part of their

coalition. That's a whole demographic that's been trained to think that belief in the face of contradictory evidence is actually a *virtue*, and they're very comfortable with ideological walls.

[pscot]

15. There will be pie in the sky, by and by

So shut up and take your lumps here on earth.

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Hah - "use 'impact' as a verb". ZING! Krugman could also start using

'enhance' when he means 'improve' (my little shout-out to fans of Heller's 'Catch 22'

[Cosmocat]

12. It is just BIZARRE what is accepted as "economic' truth in this country

99% of it does not even begin to square with simple common sense.

It is accepted not only by the high minded bank/investor types, but also by the "liberal media" that cutting government spending leads directly to economic growth.

That simply makes no sense at all. None. Even ONE SINGLE electronic fire of a single synapse in the brain tells you that government spending injects directly into the REAL economy, and cutting government spending is going to ...

be money lost to the economy.

Now, I am not big into using government to stimulate the economy per se. But, it is simple, factual, common sense reality that if you cut government spending it is going to HURT the economy, not make it magically grow.

Pained myself to watch David Gregory today, and saw the Biden interview. What NEVER gets said when butt munching twits like him are trying to desperately paint the economy in a negative light to prop up the republican's power hungry political agenda is, that while the "sainted" private sector has made up its lost jobs and is now gaining jobs, the reason unemployment remains entrenched is THE LOSS OF PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS, ie, cuts in government spending.

The Rs KNOW this full well.

But, those who comment on it, never want to hold them accountable for very effectively slowing the recovery.

Watched the first part of Fareed Zakaria's GPS, and one of the people he had on talking about Europe noted that since England went with its hard right austerity program, it now is the first major economy to officially double dip recession since this all started.

Won't hear those dot connected with the republican's continuing to drive this all or nothing approach to cutting government spending here in America.

[rhett o rick]

14. The WSJ is a propaganda sheet and the financially religious love to read it.

I doubt that they use it for advice. It doesnt matter what the "market" is doing if you steal. There is always something to steal.

[DallasNE]

16. My Only Quibble Is With Krugman's Use

Of "a few years". John Maynard Keynes theories have been around since the 1930's and to me that is more than "a few years". Otherwise Krugman is spot on.

Current Republican thinking is that supply creates its own demand. That is the old "says law" that Keynesian theory replaced back in the 1930's so we've know for about 80 years that it doesn't hold water.

My only addition is that fiscal and monetary policy must move in the same direction. The one time Keynesian policy seemed to fail was when Arthur Burns was Chairman of the Fed. His monetary policy was constantly out of sync with fiscal policy and eventually led to very high inflation, for which Paul Volker came in and cleaned up.

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

[DonCoquixote]

17. A very pertinent link

http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview

Granted, Cramer is not the WSJ, but he is very much of the same breed. Jon's point still stands, many of the people who claim they are "NEWS" people are just entertainers who sell entertainment as advice.

and this:
http://punditfight.blogspot.com/2009/06/wrestling-legend-jim-cornette-rants.html

Dont let the job of Pro wrestler fool you, this fellow's rants are on, including this nugget of truth.

JIM CORNETTE: Maybe Styles is like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or all these people I listen to that are -- You know that -- they're too smart to believe the sh!t that they say. They're heels cutting promos and its obvious and they're doing it for the marks who are dumb enough to believe it and they get paid big money to do it.

But in the process they're convincing these other mullets that what they're saying is true and they're dividing the country just like Cheney who can't stop talking about how we were right... and what's more Unamerican than publicly hoping that the President of the United States fails. That's like hoping the pilot of your airplane fails because you don't like his opinion on global warming...