Thank You Paul Krugman: 15 Years Of Being Absolutely Right

[MannyGoldstein]

I've been reading Dr. Krugman for 15 or so years, since I read his "The Age of Diminished Expectations" - I thought it was so spot-on that I purchased a bunch of copies for friends and family. Krugman has a track record of being consistently correct during that period, while Rubin, Summers, and Geithner have wrecked astonishing havoc over the same period. This terrible trio spearhead wholesale financial deregulation and almost-free trade with China, the catastrophic policies that brought Capitalism and US workers to their respective knees.

This new plan by Summers and Geithner is straight out of the Bush/Paulson Republican playbook. Heads the bankers win, tails The People lose. It is astonishing that anyone can believe that the same people, given the same out-of-whack incentives, will do things totally differently this time around. This is a banker bailout, not a bank bailout.

So thank you, Dr. Krugman: while some at DU would have you silenced, I look forward to many more years of your pointing out to us when the Emperor has no clothes.

[mix]

1. Speaking truth to power

whether left or right, is there anything more noble than that?

Know your enemies: Krugman, friends, is not one of them. Summers and Geithner are.

[Confusious]

64. He missed Enron

Just sayin'. He admits it himself. Otherwise he's GREAT!!

That wasn't sarcasm, I like Krugman, he's a realist.

[liberalmuse]

2. I'd like to see him as SOT.

I've also been reading him for years, and yes, he has been spot on.

[babylonsister]

3. You forgot the google...

question: is krugman ever wrong?

Responses: 1,040,000

You might want to check it out.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=is+krugman+ever+wrong&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Why Don't You Share A Few With Us, So We Can See What They Actually Are? n/t

[babylonsister]

17. You can read, have at it.

15 years of being absolutely right? Surely you jest. :eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

19. How About Just Sharing One? A Quick Cut And Paste? n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

22. "jews faked moon landing" - 495,000 Hits On Google

That pretty well proves it, no? At least one of those hits must be the real thing.

[w4rma]

41. Good call, Manny. (nt)

[Reterr]

48. LOL

:thumbsup:

[hay rick]

57. Everybody knows about the faked moon landing.

The Google number-of-hits is actually only 81,200- reducing the truthiness of the faked moon landing by a factor of 6. In case you were wondering, "NUDE jews faked moon landing" comes back with 22,500 hits- still well within the realm of possibility.

Not coincidentally, Krugman is (I believe) Jewish. You figure it out.

[pink-o]

60. Yes, Krugman is one of us. 2 Jews you don't wanna see nude:

Pink-O and Krugman. There's a reason we're known for our "intellect".
:evilgrin:


Geithner, OTOH, is pretty cute.(although I'm firmly in the He's-gotta-go camp.) Maybe he's the one who faked the moon landing!

[HomerRamone]

92. Oh, come on. Paul's a doll! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

67. That's Odd - It Really Was 495,000 Before

I just checked again... it's now down 100 from your figure. Darned Google.

[chill_wind]

62. :-)

[Christa]

83. Another one

God is an idiot = Results 1 - 10 of about 13,200,000 for god is an idiot. (0.18 seconds)

[bvar22]

85. Ouch.

Score one for Manny.

[Jackpine Radical]

86. I. Did. Not. Know. That.

(Johnny Carson voice.)

[Maven]

90. PWNED

:rofl:

[GOTV]

93. Absolutely hysterical and effective comeback!

[JHB]

82. Speaking of "being lazy"...

Hitting your link brings up a lot of noise: articles claiming ths or that thing that Krugman said is wrong, but most are columns themselves or are by someone pushing a program or agenda (the rationale for which Krugman's statement undermines).

The OP is obviously in Krugman love-fest mode. If you're going to rain on that parade, you need to put some substantial criticisms and counterexamples up front, not just link to a "kitchen-sink" list.

[burythehatchet]

58. you;re totally busted man..here's the proof

Thank You Paul Krugman: 15 Years Of Being Absolutely Right ...
21 posts - 5 authors - Last post: yesterday
question: is krugman ever wrong? Responses: 1040000. You might want to check it out. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=is+krugman+ever+wr ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8281427 -

[biopowertoday]

39. Results 1 - 10 of about 79,400,000 for is krugman ever right?. (0.30 seconds)

[burythehatchet]

51. delete. wrong place

[AlbertCat]

102. is krugman ever wrong?

God I hope so! I mean otherwise he's not human.

But there's being wrong....and then there's being wrong most of the time.....and then there's Glenn Beck....

[NJmaverick]

4. Krugman compared Obam supporters to Nixon's hatchet men

Krugman is only a bitter PUMA that is exploiting his economic credentials as cover for his anti-Obama credentials.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080211150350.aspx

[MannyGoldstein]

21. OK, He Was Wrong There

Not his best column.

[NJmaverick]

33. He is wrong quite often, because he bends the facts to fit his agenda

instead of studying the facts to come to a reasoned and intelligent conclusion.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Do You Have An Example Of Bent Facts?

He may interpret some things incorrectly, for brief periods of time - but I don't recall any bent facts. Or Krugman being wrong very often.

[HereSince1628]

96. Yea, all the nobel prize winners are known fact benders. Krugman is not different

Those Swedes never get anything right either, they just pick someone who fulfills their agenda.

[aquart]

68. No, that one belongs in the absolutely right column.

And it wasn't anti-Obama. It was anti-Obama supporters. A distinction quite a few of us are capable of making.

You guys were power and he spoke the truth to you. And you didn't like it. Tough.

However, he did reluctantly say we had to go with the bailout and I'd put that in the wrong, oh so wrong column.

[Captain Hilts]

100. Oh, so THAT's why he enthusiastically praised Obama's budget. Because he's bitter.

No, he's more interested in policy than personality.

Unlike most folks here.

[NJmaverick]

5. Was Krugman right when he sang Enron's praises?????

oh wait he is only a useful idiot when he is posting anti-Obama bullshit

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Link Or Slink: Show Krugman Singing Enron's Praises

I'm guessing that there's nothing substantive to your charge...

[NJmaverick]

16. You guess wrong

although since that was an article written before Enron's collapse, it is not available on the internet. Still a google search will reveal the existance of the article, just not the actual article

[MannyGoldstein]

18. OK - Find The *Existance* Of The Article, As You Say

I see nothing like that, but perhaps your Googling skills are better than mine.

[JTFrog]

35. Are you talking about the article that appeared in Fortune in May of '99?

The Ascent of E-Man

Appeared in Fortune in May, 1999.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/eman.html

The retreat of business bureaucracy in the face of the market was brought home to me recently when I joined the advisory board at Enron--a company formed in the '80s by the merger of two pipeline operators. In the old days energy companies tried to be as vertically integrated as possible: to own the hydrocarbons in the ground, the gas pump, and everything in between. And Enron does own gas fields, pipelines, and utilities. But it is not, and does not try to be, vertically integrated: It buys and sells gas both at the wellhead and the destination, leases pipeline (and electrical-transmission) capacity both to and from other companies, buys and sells electricity, and in general acts more like a broker and market maker than a traditional corporation. It's sort of like the difference between your father's bank, which took money from its regular depositors and lent it out to its regular customers, and Goldman Sachs. Sure enough, the company's pride and joy is a room filled with hundreds of casually dressed men and women staring at computer screens and barking into telephones, where cubic feet and megawatts are traded and packaged as if they were financial derivatives. (Instead of CNBC, though, the television screens on the floor show the Weather Channel.) The whole scene looks as if it had been constructed to illustrate the end of the corporation as we knew it.

What happened to the man in the gray flannel suit? No doubt he was partly a victim of sex (er, I mean gender) and drugs and rock & roll- -that is, of social change. He was also a victim of information technology, which ended up deconstructing instead of reinforcing the corporation. But probably the biggest force has been a change in ideology, the shift to pro-market policies. It's not that government has vanished from the marketplace. It's still a good guess that in a completely unregulated phone market, long-distance companies would buy up local-access companies and deny their customers the right to connect to rivals, and that the evil
empire--or at least monopoly capitalism--would rise again. However, what we have instead in a growing number of markets--phones, gas,
electricity today, probably computer operating systems and high-speed Net access tomorrow--is a combination of deregulation that lets new competitors enter and "common carrier" regulation that prevents middlemen from playing favorites, making freewheeling markets
possible.

Who would have thunk it? The millennial economy turns out to look more like Adam Smith's vision--or better yet, that of the Victorian
economist Alfred Marshall--than the corporatist future predicted by generations of corporate pundits. Get those old textbooks out of the attic: they're more relevant than ever.

[4lbs]

78. We in California know all too well about Enron.

"And Enron does own gas fields, pipelines, and utilities. But it is not, and does not try to be, vertically integrated: It buys and sells gas both at the wellhead and the destination, leases pipeline (and electrical-transmission) capacity both to and from other companies, buys and sells electricity, and in general acts more like a broker and market maker than a traditional corporation. "

----------------


Yes, that rings a bell. When California deregulated it's energy in 2000, Enron was the primary company responsible for screwing millions. It engaged in phantom trading of electricity and gas to create an artificially high demand and dwindling supply. It then used this high demand / low supply to justify increasing the energy it sold to California by as much as 300%.

People in California saw their energy bills go from about $80 to $100 monthly to between $150 and $300 within a few months.

Enron was also the indirect cause of Gray Davis' recall because popular California anger was directed towards the Governor, rightly or wrongly. Mostly wrongly.

[Enthusiast]

81. And the MSM has never fully explained

how Enron actually killed elderly by holding back energy supplys in California. Again, our most pressing issue is a corrupt, complicit media.

[mix]

25. this claim is a lie

nt

[NJmaverick]

31. That is your desire, but not the reality

[ErinBerin84]

6. he's right about a lot of things

But I don't think even he would say he's right about EVERYTHING. He even said the other day (in response to people claiming that he wasn't criticizing Bush) "I have been wrong about a lot of things over the years, but I don't think that you can accuse me of going easy on Bush."

[Dawgs]

7. It's easy to be 'spot on' when you're not responsible for anything.

I'm not sure you'd be saying the same thing if he was actually making policy.

[BeFree]

8. Whoa!

Krugman is just trying to keep his job. He writes stuff to infuriate, just as some of us do, he just gets paid for it.

Don't make him any more than he is... it's as if some of yall think he's the real Messiah, when we all know the Messiah is a black man.

[JDPriestly]

70. He writes to state his opinion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Krugman was a champion for corporate globalism throughout the 1990's

He may be right or wrong now. I don't think we know yet, since he's making a lot of prognostications that will take some time to cash out. But the notion that Krugman was some champion of lefty principles, and especially the plight of the workers in the global south, is quite frankly obnoxious and wrong. I actually like Krugman, but he was wrong wrong wrong on his vision of globalization, and disgustingly wrong, to boot.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Show Us Some Examples, Please n/t

[Reterr]

44. Because Alcibiades Mystery said so

What-thats not good enough for you? There is no pleasing some people tsk tsk....

[mix]

23. corporate globalism and free trade

two areas where Krugman and Obama see eye to eye.

[Hello_Kitty]

27. Obama's wrong too.

Unfortunately, pretty much everyone in Washington has been coopted by corporate "free traders".

[amborin]

65. his position was very nuanced, not as you say, doubt you actually read his papers

[Captain Hilts]

98. That was then. This is now. nt

[xchrom]

10. recommend

[Uzybone]

13. "some at DU would have you silenced"

what a stupid thing to say.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. e.g., "We all have a responsibility to not sabotage what the person elected decides...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8279472#8279494

[Uzybone]

26. Of course if you take that line out of context

then no leader should ever be opposed. But I suspect you know the post is referring to sabotaging Obamas agenda specifically.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Yes, That's What It's About: So What's Your Point?

That is consistent with being silenced, is it not?

[Uzybone]

37. Is Paul Krugman trying to sabotage Obamas agenda?

I am pretty sure he isn't. Even if he was, I wouldn't advoocate silencing him, I'd just hope his comments wouldn't be posted on a liberal website.

I still see no-one on this board advocating that Krugman be silenced. They are advocating he use his voice more effectively, but no one wants him silenced.

[bjobotts]

74. He's pointing out the flaws of Geithner,Summers,and Rubin...the Chicago boys

[bjobotts]

75. Even Naomi Klein tried to warn us about these Chicago Boys during the campaign

[bjobotts]

76. Right here on DU Naomi Klein pointed to Obama's economic team and warned us.

[skipos]

32. Yep. The DU hyperbole will never end. nt

[Skittles]

77. it is not stupid

it is absolutely fucking true

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Like when he wrote "In Praise of Cheap Labor"? He got that wrong.

Of course, the piece is about how outsourcing improves the conditions of poor people in other countries which, arguably, it does. However, Krugman didn't consider the effect that globalism would have on the U.S. economy. The global meltdown wasn't really caused by credit default swaps or other kinds of exotic paper, though they are obviously big factors in it. It was caused by the fact that we don't make anything in the U.S. anymore and wages stagnated in our new "service economy" while the cost of everything went up. As long as people could get credit or use their houses as ATMs things teetered along, but when they no longer could the whole thing sank. Those low wage countries Krugman praised were never going to have a consumer base to rival America's so now the entire world is hurting. Krugman probably laughed when Ross Perot talked about the "giant sucking sound" but Perot was right. Krugman was a cheerleader for outsourcing throughout the 90s and he was dead wrong.

[mix]

28. Obama is for "free trade", outsourcing, and globalization.

So is his entire economic team. On this issue Krugman and the president agree.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. Obama's wrong about that too. But the OP is about Krugman.

The OP is making the absurd claim that Krugman has been "absolutely right" for 15 years.

[uponit7771]

30. Link and quote? thx

[mix]

38. here you go

To Obama's credit, he believes along with Krugman in a more humane globalization (fair trade), with labor and environmental matters given more attention.

Recent Obama support for free trade: http://www.rttnews.com/Content/USEconomicNews.aspx?Node=B2&Id=889387
An overview of Obama's views: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14762/
Free trade (Summers): http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516746

Krugman on free trade: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/opinion/the-trade-tightrope.html

It is clear that people of many ideological stripes support free trade and globalization. Krugman and Obama both seem to support more emphasis on social justice issues (labor, environment).

[Hello_Kitty]

43. It's wonderful that they're both for "humane" globalization

But it doesn't address the paradox that you can't have an economy based on the purchasing power of high wage workers when you keep suppressing everyone's wages.

[wisteria]

40. I agree with your assessment of Krugman. I don't always like what he has to say, but...

he has been right most of the time. I am just hoping this time our President and his allies will triumph and that Krugman will be proven incorrect.

[jimlup]

42. Krugman deals in reality based economics

It is sad to see some many DU'ers become sheep without brains. We need to be harder on Obama because there is a chance he will actually listen to reason. With Bush-moron there was no chance.

[Captain Hilts]

101. Krugman's a policy man, not personality or politics. He praised Obama's budget...

and he's critical of this. That's the way it is.

[Reterr]

45. Eh-might as well recommend Krug with my 1000th post.eom

[inna]

46. K&R! (#17)

... and i CANNOT BELIEVE all the Krugman bashers on this board, it's just really sad.

[FrenchieCat]

47. I disagree with your premise to some extent,

and make my case in detail here as to why:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8282342

[LostinVA]

49. k&r

[AlCzervik]

50. Nicely Done Manny.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[burythehatchet]

52. I think my new sig line says all that needs to be said.

[LittleBlue]

53. Thanks Manny

It is people like you who will help Obama to be a better president, and keep the insane Palin away from the Big Red Button.

[dpbrown]

54. That's for sure

Whatever happened to "bold" approaches that work?

[MasonJar]

55. Thank you, Manny! Paul Krugman is trying to help us, the US taxpayer,

get the right choice for our buck. I cannot understand why Obama chose Geithner/Summers in the first place. He is now blind and deaf to any substantial criticism of the two. They are corporate insiders, who have a mindset which is natural considering their background, but who are not the answer to our current economic disaster. They are naturally drawn to promote pro-banker solutions. I refuse to believe that this is Obama's agenda. I certainly hope not.

[BzaDem]

56. K & R!

[BobTheSubgenius]

59. I quite like Krugman and read his column whenever I see it.

However, no one is always right, especially in a soft "science" like economics, which is almost as much art as science. No matter how accurate the numbers an economist works with, it's impossible to predict with complete accuracy what perceptions and reactions might be to a given situation.

And if bad information is provided.....like Enron, for example.....

[TankLV]

61. Too bad a little thing like RESULTS prove that Krugman is always right while the other idiots whine

kick and scream...

I'll take a NOBEL LAUREAT EXPERT with an awsome track record over self-proclaimed ALWAYS WRONG "experts" any day...

[Jackpine Radical]

94. Nobel Prize laureate? You mean like Milton Friedman?

Economics is not a value-free enterprise. Krugman is essentially a Keynesian, which is why I value him over the Chicago-Schoolers, whom I see as basically rationalizers of gluttony.

[digidigido]

63. What about Suze Orman?

[inna]

66. what about her? please elaborate. nt

[camera obscura]

69. 50th rec right here.

[HughMoran]

71. "while some at DU would have you silenced"

Yes, your point has been made here lately.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

We get it. Krugman is God.

[Wetzelbill]

72. I would say he is almost always right

Maybe not absolutely right. :) But close.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. I Didn't Mean To Imply That He's *Always* Right

Although I can only think of two things where he was wrong, and neither was economic.

I meant that he was absolutely right about the big picture - that the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush policies would screw the Middle Class and lead us off a cliff.

[bjobotts]

73. Who at DU ever wanted Krugman "silenced"? When? I missed that one

[MannyGoldstein]

79. For Example...

"We all have a responsibility to not sabotage what the person elected decides.... other than the GOP I guess. At some point Krugman becomes the enemy because he starts to affect the plan Obama has chosen."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8279472#8279494

[Captain Hilts]

97. See Post #4. nt

[SlingBlade]

84. Paul Krugman for Economic Czar

[DrDan]

87. the Krugman-bashers were out in force over the weekend

based. of course, on his lack of hero-worship. He had the gall to criticize the administration, hence obviously a hack.

[BeyondGeography]

88. Hero worship is a good description for this thread, actually

[DrDan]

89. it certainly has migrated in the direction over the past year, hasn't it

[Captain Hilts]

99. And they forget how he enthusiastically praised the Admin's budget.

That way they can label him a bitter "PUMA" or Hillaryite.

[DrDan]

104. ant that they did - many times over

[Maven]

91. K/R

Excellent post.

[JFKfanforever]

95. Another enthusiastic K&R!

<<<shudder>>> Can you just imagine if
Geithner was elbowed out and Summers got appointed to replace
him at Treasury? <<<shudder>>>

Read the job history of Larry Samuelson a.k.a. Summers and
notice how he has been dogged by controversy and dissention
for years as he hops with blithe indifference from job to job.

Krugman really has a grip on the economy... but would he
accept such a key apoint,ent in this administration?  No
idea... Wishful thinking, I would imagine. 

[The Backlash Cometh]

103. 99.9% of the time, he is.

I don't know anyone who can beat his track record.