It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Idiot: Paul Krugman

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Who is Paul Krugman?


Paul Robin Krugman (play /ˈkruːɡmən/; born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics) for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the Nobel Prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services


Who the hell am I to call such a venerated man an American Idiot? Consider this:


The New York Times columnist wrote a blog post called "The Years of Shame," in which he said that "what happened after 9/11" was "deeply shameful." Krugman castigated people like Rudy Giuliani and President Bush as "fake heroes" who exploited the attacks for their own personal, political or military gain. He also said that many in the media had "[lent] their support to the hijacking of the atrocity."

Krugman concluded, "the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And, in its heart, the nation knows it." He said he had turned off the comments on the post "for obvious reasons."


Not in itself enough evidence to indict Krugman as an American Idiot, and as Tommy Christopher of Mediaite points out:


Much of the conservative angst surrounding Krugman’s post centers around the propriety of launching such a political attack on such a solemn occasion. That’s a fair point (it’s not something I would do), but not particularly outrageous. I’m certain you couldn’t throw a rock in either blogohemisphere without hitting something just as partisan, or worse. Krugman’s central point, that post-9/11 America quickly became a deeply-divided place, is something that neither side can credibly deny.


However, in Krugman's sanctimonious criticism he seems to forget his own deeply shameful exploitation of the 9/11 attacks published just three days after:


Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good.


Being the Nobel Prize winning economist that he is, he explains his dubious remark as such:


About the direct economic impact: The nation's productive base has not been seriously damaged. Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick. The World Trade Center contained 12 million square feet of office space; that's out of 375 million square feet in Manhattan alone, and 3.5 billion in the United States as a whole. Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane.


Krugman is, after all, an economist. Why should he, just three days after this tragedy, care about the emotional impact this had on a nation? Why should he care about the profound grief this caused the family's of the nearly 3,000 people who were killed by this attack? Krugman is an unabashed big government advocate who in his very next paragraph continues with:


The wild card here is confidence. But the confidence that matters in this case has little to do with general peace of mind. If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy. For a few weeks horrified Americans may be in no mood to buy anything but necessities. But once the shock has passed it's hard to believe that consumer spending will be much affected.


What does Krugman mean by confidence? Consider this analysis from Ludwig von Mises Institute:


Under today's fiat-money regime, banks, under governments' auspices, increase the money stock "out of thin air" whenever they extend loans. The money supply is built on credit, which, in turn, hinges on peoples' confidence in banks and banks' confidence in their borrowers' ability and willingness to service their debt.

As confidence leaves the system, banks refrain from extending loans and demand repayment of outstanding loans, and the money stock contracts. Economies that have for decades been fuelled by ever-higher doses of credit and money fall into depression — that is, declining production, employment, and prices.


Of course, the author of those two paragraphs, Thorstein, comes from the Frankfurt School of Economics:


An early criticism, originating from the left, argues that Frankfurt School critical theory is nothing more than a form of "bourgeois idealism" devoid of any actual relation to political practice, and is hence totally isolated from the reality of any ongoing revolutionary movement.


Krugman, on the other hand, comes from the London School of Economics and Political Science of which Wikipedia apparently believes is free of any criticisms:


The London School of Economics and Political Science (informally the London School of Economics or LSE) is a public research university specialised in the social sciences located in London, United Kingdom and a constituent college of the federal University of London. Founded in 1895 by Fabian Society members Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw, LSE joined the University of London in 1900 and degrees were first issued to its students in 1902.


And what precisely is this Fabian Society?


The Fabian Society is a British socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means. It is best known for its initial ground-breaking work beginning late in the 19th century and continuing up to World War I. The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, especially India.


Why are they called the Fabian Society? Follow me to the next post to find out...

To be continued....






edit on 2-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The Fabian Society:


The Fabian Society, which favoured gradual change rather than revolutionary change, was named – at the suggestion of Frank Podmore – in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). His Fabian strategy advocated tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal.

An explanatory note appearing on the title page of the group's first pamphlet declared:

"For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless."


So, if Krugman is linked, albeit indirectly, to all this cleverly devious and diabolical Snidely Whiplash hand rubbing planning, then who the hell am I to call him an American Idiot? Consider this:




If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months.


Gee, too bad Klingons or Romulons haven't facilitated Krugman's hypothesis. Of course, this is coming from the same man who once said this:


There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.


And then there is this spectacularly stupid remark Krugman made in response to a fake stupid remark parading as a Krugman stupid remark in his New York Times piece; Identity Theft:


So if you see me quoted as saying something really stupid or outrageous, and it didn’t come from the Times or some other verifiable site, you should probably assume it was a fake.


So if you read some stupid remark Krugman made in the New York Times or some other verifiable source, he assures us all that those stupid remarks can be confidently attributed to Krugman.

And then there is yesterday's (May 1st, 2012) amusing stupid remarks by Krugman:


A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.


Yes, of course! Debates are useless, or as Krugman puts it; "face to face" debates. What debate is Krugman referring to?



What about Krugman's gah gah goo goo remarks. His very first statement in this "face to face" debate was:


Okay...right...well there's certain things - you know - you can't leave the government out of monetary policy.


Now there's a priceless Jean Paul Zodeaux So Duh moment if I've ever seen one! A free and open market wouldn't have any "monetary policy", only a goddamned government would have such a thing!

He continues with:


If you try to think we're...we're gonna just let it set itself it doesn't happen. The government is actually always uh...the, the federal reserve, the central bank is always going to be in the business of managing...uh...monetary policy. If you think that that...you can avoid that..uhm...you're living in...uhm...some...you're living in the world as it was a hundred and fifty years ago, right?


You would think this Nobel Prize winning economist wouldn't need it pointed out to him that the uh...the federal reserve, that central bank Krugman is...uh...referring to is certainly not 150 years old, and is just barely reaching its centennial. 150 years ago was 1862. What was happening in America in 1862? Why the Civil War!

Now keep in mind that Krugman is refuting Ron Paul's assertion that:


And this idea that...uh...somebody or some group might know what the proper amount of money should be, or what the proper rate of interest should be is sort of presumptous, you know I don't...I don't know where they get this knowledge and uh...how I call it a pretense of knowledge, they pretend they know, but they really don't...


And here is the remainder of Krugman's refutation:


We have an economy where money is not just green pieces of paper with uh...with uh faces of dead President's on them. Money is uh...is the result of a financial system that includes a variety of assets. We're not even quite sure where the line between money and non-money is.


Krugman's refutation is actually a reiteration of Ron Paul's point. Krugman knows he is floundering at this point, so he awkwardly switches points:


Look, history tells us that in fact an un...a completely unmanaged economy is subject to extreme volatility...subject to extreme downturns. I know there is this legend that people like probably you Congressman have that the Great Depression was somehow caused by the government, caused by the federal reserve, but it's not true.


Never mind that Krugman's newest book The Return of Depression Economics is a dire warning of the very thing he claims is the result of an unmanaged economy, what of his assertion that it is not true that the federal reserve actually caused the Great Depression? Consider our current fed chairman, Ben Bernanke's own words on the matter:


Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.


Krugman goes on in this "face to face debate" this "useless" debate for another 25 minutes making an idiot of himself, which is no doubt why he finds "face to face" debates to be so useless, but do not allow me to tell you what to think.

Is Paul Krugman and American Idiot? You decide.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The only idiot is the one who derisively call another an idiot. After all, it takes one to know one.

Krugman only shares his views in public, and is open for debates and discussions. He does not force his will upon anyone, nor seeks to.

Personal attacks using qoutes taken out of context are nothing new in the public sphere. Who amongst us all is perfect? We all make mistakes from time to time. OP, dare you claim you have NEVER made a mistake in your life, or contridict yourself time and time again?

No. None is perfect. We mankind can only progress if we DARE to stand our point, and if we were wrong, then acknowledge it, correct it and progress.

The only failure in life is the fear making mistakes. And worse if someone thinks he can never make mistakes, for as sure as death and taxes in life, a mistake will happen. Small ones will hurt none, but big ones may end up loss of thousands of precious human lives.

OP, dare you call yourself perfect or dare you admit now you are an idiot?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Just another talking head pundit. Even the bankers don't understand the monetary system they manipulate. They might understand their little piece of it but how their piece fits into the whole is not understood. Krugman is a joke!



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
ALIENS WILL SAVE THE ECONOMY!!!

Krugman is an idiot!

Guess people have a problem with truth.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





The only idiot is the one who derisively call another an idiot. After all, it takes one to know one.


All righty then, let me get this straight. You're derisively calling me an idiot because I have derisively called Paul Krugman an idiot. Is that the crux of it?




Krugman only shares his views in public, and is open for debates and discussions. He does not force his will upon anyone, nor seeks to.


Are you suggesting that Krugman does not share his views privately? Are you suggesting that his May 2nd, 2012 Conscience of a Liberal blog was actually he showing his openness for debates and discussions? Are you suggesting that Krugman turning off the comments section of his "The Years of Shame" blog for "obvious reasons" was obviously he being open to discussion? Are you suggesting his assertion that we will always be stuck with the federal reserve is not really he forcing something on all of us, or at the very least seeking to?




No. None is perfect. We mankind can only progress if we DARE to stand our point, and if we were wrong, then acknowledge it, correct it and progress.


Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us, or at the very least me, of a time Krugman acknowledged being wrong.




OP, dare you call yourself perfect or dare you admit now you are an idiot?


Are those the only two options?


edit on 2-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: Just me being an idiot correcting an idiotic typo this humble idiot made.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by americanbuffalo1
Just another talking head pundit. Even the bankers don't understand the monetary system they manipulate. They might understand their little piece of it but how their piece fits into the whole is not understood. Krugman is a joke!


Many talking heads had been contributing to the media, all with a common aim to help make others aware of the state of the economy and solutions to it.

At least Krugman had been courageous enough to do so, with very much effort put in, while many more others and lap dogs toed the banking elite line.

As with all discussions and debates, there will be points that are both acceptable or unacceptable by others. It is only normal in a democratic free flow of expressions. Krugman had been brutally frank recently and made many enemies. Such is the public sphere when one voices out and expected.

If you had not been following the economic debate in the new york times, and voicing out without comprehension, then I guess if there is joke, the joke will be on you.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Is Paul Krugman and American Idiot? You decide.

I have no information as to his nationality, so I can't say...

Y'know, I've seen Krugman in a few interviews now. I would think that a fella with so much education could...I dunno...maybe form a complete sentence? I don't think I've seen him utter one yet. I know 9 year olds who communicate better.

He does seem to contradict himself a lot, depending on where and to whom he's talking.

Yeah, he's an idiot.

Why is he on tv, anyway?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
All righty then, let me get this straight. You're derisively calling me an idiot because I have derisively called Paul Krugman an idiot. Is that the crux of it?


Your mistake number 1:- Failure to comprehend english and putting words into mouth of others. But then, that's typical of your kind perhaps?

As for your other questions, only Krugman can answer for himself. Not me. I do not live his life, nor do you. It boils down to matters of perceptions I suppose, entirely up to you on how you perceived Krugman's supposed behaviour as 'idiocy' in your own personal eyes, so much that you had to open a thread by labelling him as such.



Are those the only two options?

I'm afraid so. It is only a question of perception, but soley based upon what your wrote, after all , it IS your thread and what you want others to perceive you as.

Cheers.
edit on 2-5-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





Your mistake number 1:- Failure to comprehend english and putting words into mouth of others. But then, that's typical of your kind perhaps?


Wait a minute...did you just, in plain "english" (sic), put words in my mouth?




As for your other questions, only Krugman can answer for himself.


Yet you made the assertions that gave rise to the questions.




I'm afraid so.


This, of course, is in response to my question of only two options. Yes indeed! Be afraid, very afraid of the logical fallacy of either or.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
One short phrase of Krugman's (below) struck a cord in me. That remark makes my skin crawl. It is too similar to the Israeli remarks said at the same time that 9//11 would be good for Israel.

"Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good."

Anybody recall what is his ethnic background?
It may have a bearing on his views.
.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
He's not just an idiot, he's an asshole and RP wiped the floor with him.

Revisionist history and forgetting that the government IS NOT the Federal Reserve (as he seems to, inexplicably) is not going to get this guy any votes from me. When I watched the video of their "debate", I went in thinking, "this will be a great battle!"

Oh lord no.

I am a fan of RP and his ability to put into simple terms the relatively complex nature of the value of money and the Constitutionally correct banking concept. But even with this, shall we say, favoritism, it is obvious that Krugman was not even on the same page as the Doc.

Getting Politifact in that debate to line-item it would be nice, even better if it were in the bottom right corner as each topic came up, showing liar-liar pants on fire, truth, or somewhere in between.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
So 9/11 wasn't exploited for the gains of the few?

We've not put our sons & daughters in harm's way to benefit only those few? Really?

As for your snippet about the "economic good", nice creative edit there... did you read the entire article? What was exploited by the economist again? What he stated was PROPHETIC. The war of lies, the Patriot Act... things ramrodded down our throats by both parties.

His closing statement of:

"I didn't want to mention this, but now is the time to draw the line. This tragedy will only be magnified if it is exploited for political gain. Politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots, and history will not forgive them. "

Is true, do we not agree?

It is ASTOUNDING how the GOP will cover itself in the flag, acting as if they care only about our troops yet they cavalierly spent those lives and limbs. What was good old Rummy's response to armor plating the Humvees and why it wasn't being done at the time? I remember it was something equally cavalier, don't you?

Derek



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Krugman is a leftist and an academic and as such is out of touch with reality, living in a world of abstracts and classroom theoreticals. He is a proponent of class warfare, i.e. gummnt should tax the crap out of anyone making more money than he. I've been running across his stuff for year--google news likes to feature him--and he is the epitome of educated idiot.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Viesczy
 





As for your snippet about the "economic good", nice creative edit there... did you read the entire article? What was exploited by the economist again? What he stated was PROPHETIC. The war of lies, the Patriot Act... things ramrodded down our throats by both parties.


I'm am sorry to burst your pretty little balloon there friend, but if you haven't noticed the economy went into the crapper post 9/11 and the 15 trillion dollar national debt that keeps skyrocketing upward is only making the economy worse. PROPHETIC indeed.




His closing statement of:

"I didn't want to mention this, but now is the time to draw the line. This tragedy will only be magnified if it is exploited for political gain. Politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots, and history will not forgive them. "


Let's never mind that Krugman's assertion of "not wanting to mention" it is then followed by he mentioning it, and instead let's take a look at his more recent blog The Years of Shame where Krugman exploits the tragedy for his own political gain:


What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.


Krugman is unabashedly leftist, and yet for his own political gain, he only holds the right responsible for what was a unified bi-partisan rush to cash in on the horror. Let us take a look at the Senate's rush to cash in on the horror by their voting record for The Patriot Act. 98 "yeas", one "nay" - admittedly a democrat - and one abstention. Both the left and the right are responsible for this rush to cash in on the horror.




Is true, do we not agree?


Clearly we do not agree.




It is ASTOUNDING how the GOP will cover itself in the flag, acting as if they care only about our troops yet they cavalierly spent those lives and limbs. What was good old Rummy's response to armor plating the Humvees and why it wasn't being done at the time? I remember it was something equally cavalier, don't you?


And now, here you are Derek, just as guilty as Krugman in an attempt for political gain, screaming partisan politics.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Personal attacks using qoutes taken out of context are nothing new in the public sphere. Who amongst us all is perfect? We all make mistakes from time to time. OP, dare you claim you have NEVER made a mistake in your life, or contridict yourself time and time again?

Making a mistake is one thing
Saying to help the economy an alien invasion is needed is something else

I'm sure the OP would NEVER say that on national television



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 





I'm sure the OP would NEVER say that on national television


Thank you my friend, I too am certain the O.P. would never do such a thing. He might show off his fluent Klingon on national television, but he would never, ever hope for an invasion. QA TLHO' - KAHTLOE' GHHIJ KET JAGHHMEYJAHJ!


edit on 2-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: Can you say Klingon on three times very quickly?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.


The first part is probably the smartest thing the other 'idiot' in your Original Post ever said.

Which was then followed by complete and total idiocy on his part as they are as fiscally irresponsible as anyone can be with other's (over-printed) money.





edit on 3-5-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Paul Krugman's Tin Foil Hat Solution:


Economist Paul Krugman has a simple solution to America's economic woes: Prepare for an alien invasion.

Arguing that the United States successfully ended the Great Depression with government spending, he provided an interesting idea about how to replicate that economic feat on Tuesday at the Take Back the American Dream conference in Washington, D.C.

"If you actually look at what took us out of the Great Depression," the Princeton University professor said in an interview with Chris Hayes of MSNBC. "It was Europe's entry into World War II and the U.S. buildup that began in advance."

"So if we could get something that could cause the government to say, ‘Oh, never mind those budget things; let’s just spend and do a bunch of stuff.' So my fake threat from space aliens is the other route,” Krugman said before a laughing crowd. “I’ve been proposing that.”


(Emphasis Added)

This is a prime example of what happens when an "economist" who has never operated a business speaks to economy. There is the real world where economy means the money in play, and where economical means price within the scope of the money in play, and then there is the imaginary world of "economists" where "budget things" only get in the way of spending so you can "do a bunch of stuff".



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join