Krugman: Conspiracy theories predominantly on the right; few on the left.

[pampango]

...conspiracy theories are supported by a lot of influential people on the right, but not on the left. They misrepresent this as a claim that most conspiracy theorists are on the right, and point to evidence that “motivated reasoning” is equally common on left and right as proof that I’m wrong.

...motivated reasoning isn’t the same thing as conspiracy theorizing. Believing that official inflation numbers understate true inflation, based not on understanding the data but on political leanings, is motivated reasoning. Believing that the BLS is deliberately understating inflation and unemployment as a political favor to the White House is a conspiracy theory.

And there’s a big difference even when it comes to conspiracy theorizing between having something believed by some, maybe even a lot, of people and having it stated by influential politicians and other members of the elite.

So how did my claim about elites and conspiracy theories — which I think is very defensible, even obvious — turn into a supposed claim that isn’t defensible, and can be dismissed as foolish? Well, you know the answer: centrists want to believe that liberals are just as bad as conservatives, so they see shrill partisanship even when it’s not really there.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/attack-of-the-crazy-centrists/

Krugman's point seems to be that there are conspiracy theories from both the right and the left, but it is on the right that these CT's attract the support of influential politicians. Most of these right wing politicians may not actually believe a particular CT but pretend to in order to pander to their base.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Chronic and habitual overstatement of the job market is not a conspiracy theory.

It's not even motivated reasoning. It's factual, and the theory that it is done to pressure the fed to raise interest rates is easily defensible when one notes that the people doing this pressuring derive their wealth from higher interest, not increased wages.

It has nothing to do with the person currently in the white house. It has everything to do with kleptocracy.

[pampango]

2. You and Mr. Krugman disagree on that point. As I'm sure you know, Krugman is not arguing for

higher interest rates - quite the opposite. His position is that the economy and labor market are weak, interests rates should stay low and that we need fiscal stimulus from the government, although anything like that is impossible to get through the House.

If he believed that government statistics on jobs, wages, inflation, etc. were falsified to present a "rosier than reality" picture, I have no doubt he would say so. Evidence of such dishonesty would bolster his position that the economy needs a kick in the pants not any form of restraint that conservative 'inflation hawks' pander.