Am I the only person here who doesn't particularly care about Paul Krugman?

[Occam Bandage]

Jesus fucking Christ. The dude writes a column for the NY Times. He says things, usually they're reasonable, and sometimes they're more intended to provoke discussion than to be realistic proposals. Sometimes, either for the sake of discussion or because he does not feel the need to consider political reality, he demands unreasonable things. This is fine; he recognizes and freely acknowledges that he does not have the temperament to hold public office, and that shows in his ideological ferocity (or, from another perspective, inflexibility).

I read him if I happen across his column while reading the NYT. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I think he's being a bit disingenuous. But, I mean, the same goes for just about every single other political columnist ever. We don't all go fucking apeshit over David Sirota, or over Frank Rich, or over Dowd, Krauthammer, Will, Klein, or any number of other keyboard jockeys who have a gig in the political-entertainment business called the "news media."

What the hell makes Paul Krugman affect DUers to the extent that half the posts here are either treating him like a knight-champion or as a dire villain? I really do not get it.

[flor de jasmim]

1. Probably the Nobel Prize, but I'm with you.

I'd have more respect for him if I hadn't seen article after article lambasting Obama for the past 2 years while opening fawning over Hillary, even when their positions were close. In his own way, he incites rebellion in ways which although not similar to Limbaugh / Beck, etc., still have a similar effect on some readers.

[Occam Bandage]

6. I think Krugman's Nobel has nothing to do with this.

His Nobel was for his analysis of international trade patterns. That has nothing to do with any of his criticisms of Obama. I think you're right in that his primary-season open partisanship makes him polarizing, though. It was indeed strange to see him consistently slamming Obama while promoting Hillary, with little regard for consistency except in the targets of his attacks and his defenses respectively. But, I mean, partisanship among political writers is kind of par for the course. Their job is to make people want to read them, and people love conflict.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. To some extent, I disagree with you.

I think people see the Nobel and immediately go into worship mode, as if he's got all the answers. Many people are woefully unable to think for themselves, and progressives are not exempt from this natural law.

[TexasObserver]

2. I've been reading Krugman for many years, and my opinion of him hasn't changed.

He's kind of a doofus, more academic nerd that practical, a gadfly who fulfills that role well. I like what he has to say about 2/3 of the time, but he can be pissy and over the top.

I've noticed that most who worship him didn't know who he was a year ago.

[truedelphi]

25. That is my stance also.

I tend to think Krugman probably did not lambast the Clinton decision to go all out for NAFTA.

In fact it seemed to me that the only person who went agaisnt the "We need NAFTA or we will die" meme was Ross Perot, and everyone seemed to make fun of him and his giant sucking sound. Now that millions if not billions of our recovery monies will help the Mega Corporations set up further operations in India, we have all come to appreciate what he was saying.

[Uzybone]

3. +1

:thumbsup:

[Jennicut]

4. I could give a crap less, please DU end the Krugman obsession!

[ErinBerin84]

5. yup

I wonder if Krugman looked at DU, if he would get freaked out by the number of threads on him.

[Baikonour]

23. He probably would be. n/t

[Reterr]

28. Probably

:crazy:

[uponit7771]

7. I just mentioned Krugmans "inflexibility" in a post, he's arguing between better and best. I don't..

...agree with his logic that the mortgage securities are worthless because people RIGHT NOW aren't going to pay for them.

They're valuated as if they're paying 0 out vs. the 70% payout they have right now during a down economy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. No, you're not

:-)

[Cleita]

9. Probably. He's a progressive thinker who has real solutions but in our

culture that has everyone brain washed that business is king and everything else secondary, we go down the wrong economic path time and time again. Because our media and educational systems give the ordinary American very little information about the world at large, the economies and how they work, guys like Krugman become voices crying in the wilderness even though in the end they prove to be right. Remember we were buying gas guzzling SUVs when lone voices like Jimmy Carter were warning us of the hazards of being too oil dependent and imminent global warming and look where we are today.

[theophilus]

10. I'm with you. Krugman, imo, comes off as a massive ego and no real solutions

offered. He is in it for the argument and I don't see him as caring about most of us. All economists are guessing and we need to work together to survive this. It shouldn't just be about Mr. Krugman and his Nobel. He strikes me as too snarky. Anyway......I am also not that impressed by Mr. Krugman's actions.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Well, that's not quite my argument, really. Sure, he's snarky and egotistic, but

so is just about everyone else with a column. That's entertainment. People like snarky, egotistic people who agree with them. John Stewart, for instance. Keith Olbermann. Rachael Maddow. All have large fanbases here, all like to stir the pot, and none offer solutions. By watching/reading them, people pay them to tell politicians "you're doing it wrong."

I think Krugman is a better columnist than most. I suppose I think more people should read him. But I mean, when you get down to it, he's still a columnist. This whole thing seems as out of place as if DU were to spend a few days every month fiercely bashing or breathlessly promoting Rachael Ray.

[CTyankee]

24. When you think about, many, many people (including many on DU) get paid to say what they think.

So how is it a big surprise when Paul Krugman does it?

Here's how I view him. I note that he has been right on some very big issues, notably the housing bubble which he was on record, Cassandra like, before the big collapse. He was right on the Big One. That impresses me. I think his judgment that Obama wasn't spending enough money on stimulus is also correct. You may argue that Krugman doesn't have to face a recalcitrant Congress, he just has to tap out a column. And that is also true and that is the basis of Rahm Emmanuel's recent criticism of Krugman. So Rahm is right but Krugman is, in my opinion, also right.

Krugman and Obama have two different jobs. If Krugman were to not express his doubts, when he has them, on Obama's policies, and the whole thing collapsed, wouldn't we be asking "where were the journalists and other commentators?"

That said, I cringe when I read Krugman's critique of Obama and often I avoid reading them because I want to support our President. I want him to succeed more than anything else, because I believe that if he succeeds the country succeeds. But I also believe that Obama reads Krugman and derives wisdom where he finds it (he has already said as much). I want THAT spirit to survive and thrive...

[Occam Bandage]

34. It isn't a surprise. That's what the OP's generally about, really.

He's a columnist. He's usually right. He's occasionally wrong. When it comes to politics, he prefers to engage in what amounts to brick-throwing, which is what all columnists/commentators do; measured discussion of potential Senate vote-counting is boring. Nobody wants to read, "yeah, pretty much everything we're all saying is totally unrelated to this bill; what matters is whether Susan Collins can be persuaded to vote in favor of it if we maybe give Maine an earmark or two in the next omnibus bill."

But there are a ton of columnists like that. When it comes to the liberal blogosphere, why is Krugman in particular the Great Satan for some, and the High Priest-king for others?

[CTyankee]

38. That's a good question. It seems we're divided into two camps here at DU.

But really there is only a fraction of DU involved in this debate. I guess the most excitable. People are on edge because they feel Obama has just a brief time to "fix" everything and if he doesn't then kaboom, we'll go back to freeperland. RIght now for the sake of my sanity I have to go with my gut feeling that Obama has a strategy that will get us out of this mess and that we have to give him a chance to work it through...

[gblady]

11. no, you're not alone....

DU is just happily being DU...
getting into a pissing contest about
something...anything...
It's simply the topic du jour!

[uponit7771]

12. Krugman credibility comes from calling the crash and his Nobel prize, it's good to listen to him but

...I can see his "inflexibility"

[JohnnyLib2]

13. No. My eyes glaze over on the whole topic of economics.

There is an astounding number of experts on the subject, though...

[Skidmore]

15. Krugman has good things to say sometimes but a lot of the

BS he spouted during the primary still makes him not so palatable to me.

[Time for change]

16. I've read two books by him

They were both excellent IMO. (I don't know what other books he's written).

One was "The Great Unravelling", in which he explains in easy to understand terms what is wrong with Bush's economic policies, at a time when Bush was still popular. I learned a lot from it.

The other was "The Conscience of a Liberal", in which he explains how FDR's New Deal helped to bring us out of the Great Depression, how it gave our country several decades of prosperity and facilitated the creation of a vibrant middle class before being dismantled starting with the Reagan presidency, and why it's important that we understand this history today. I talk about that in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2275383

Universal health care is a particular interest of his, and he believes that it is a key to taking back our country. This is his take on it:

The principal reason to reform American health care is simply that it would improve the quality of life for most Americans…

There is, however, another important reason for health care reform. It’s the same reasons movement conservatives were so anxious to kill Clinton’s plan. That plan’s success, said William Kristol, “would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy” – by which he really meant that universal health care would give new life to the New Deal idea that society should help its less fortunate members. Indeed it would – and that’s a big argument in its favor…

Getting universal care should be the key domestic priority for modern liberals. Once they succeed there, they can turn to the broader, more difficult task of reining in American inequality.

For all these reasons I respect his opinion a great deal. I don't believe he is inflexible either. I see him as having strong opinions, rather than being inflexible.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. I like Krugman well enough,

and he's clearly a very smart guy, but economics is not an exact science and he's really guessing and speculating like everybody else. His are educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. I take his opinions seriously but not as gospel, since there are also a lot of other smart guys with differing opinions who are also making well-educated guesses.

As a non-economist who finds the whole thing pretty baffling, all I can do is consider the fact that Krugman is very smart and well-informed but he's a columnist and an academic who's never actually had to manage any aspect of a government economy. Geithner, on the other hand, who is also a smart guy, can be fairly criticized for being too much a part of a system that has badly malfunctioned. I'm not going to bash anybody because the reality is that nobody really knows what the right answer is. Economics has too many moving parts and too many possible unintended consequences for any of these guys to be absolutely certain. Who's right? Damned if I know. I'm just along for the ride.

[Phx_Dem]

18. I'm with you. I respect Krugman, but I don't think he's the knower

of everything and I'm absolutely sure, based on his comments, he has no idea what it actually takes to get a bill through Congress (as Rahm correctly pointed out).

[nichomachus]

19. Let's see -- who do I pay more attention to?

Nobel Prize winner or some politician, with no real knowledge of economics who's counting votes for the next election and counting money from the corporate lobbyists........


I'll stick with Krugman

Thanks for asking, though.

[opihimoimoi]

20. Better to listen to Krug than the Dennis Miller or Dick Morris

[opihimoimoi]

21. crap.....dupe

[Occam Bandage]

31. When it comes to what can be passed through the Senate?

The President of the United States, with thousands of advisers and a constant flow of information as to what drives the votes of each of the ninety-nine sitting Senators?

Or some ivory-tower academic-cum-columnist in New York, with neither experience in nor any particular knowledge of politics, who's counting the pageviews on his NYT blog and articles that stroke his ego and pay his salary...

Bogus "who ya gonna trust" arguments like that can be be turned around so easily they aren't worth anything as a justification.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Yes you are the only one

:crazy:

[ochazuke]

26. The Great Disappointment

At this moment in time, the relevant point is: Krugman is right on the banks, and Geithner is wrong. Krugman is continuing in his tradition of being a critic of a system run by and for the "predator class" (see James K. Galbraith & Thorstein Veblen), and Geithner is continuing in the other side of that tradition.

The disappointing thing -- that DUers need to see clearly -- is that Obama is more about continuity with Bush than change.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Absolutely ridiculous. nt

[Mithreal]

45. You may have a kernel of truth in there but the rhetoric you are using

is going to prevent anyone who disagrees with it from taking the argument seriously. It is too soon to call anything about this administration the Great Disappointment or that the President is not in the process of creating change.

Your post seems worded to create flames.

I have heard some very awkward arguments why Geithner should continue in his position that got me thinking but I believe he, Summers, and Rubin need to be gone yesterday.

Don't sell the President out so soon.

[ochazuke]

48. Clarification

The Geithner plan is basically the Paulson plan with "bells and whistles". Paul Krugman has been pointing this out all along. If I'm disappointed, Krugman, in his latest NYT Op-Ed, is in "Despair":

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=2

I don't consider anything I wrote a "sell out" of the president. If liberals think they need to support the Democratic president because they have no where to go, then we (liberals) will be as marginalized as is the far right. We need to hold him to the promise of change -- show him that is where his true political constituency lies.

My subject line, "The Great Disappointment" is meant to recall The Great Depression, but also suggest that we got a president promising progressive change that would end the problems that got us here, and so far, we've got more of the same.

Depression, Despair, Disappointment. My choice seems the least extreme of the three, ironically.

[Reterr]

27. I don't think Krugman is a knight-champion

But, I will say I have infinitely more regard for his opinion than that of most of those other gadflies, the worst of them being that idiot Dowd.

I guess the thing about Krugman is that he does at the end of the day have real credentials (and I don't mean something highly politicized like the Nobel)-he is a respected academic and at least to me that carries weight, maybe because my own background has lead me to have a lot of respect for academia in general.

I read him if I happen across his column while reading the NYT. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I think he's being a bit disingenuous. But, I mean, the same goes for just about every single other political columnist ever. We don't all go fucking apeshit over David Sirota, or over Frank Rich, or over Dowd, Krauthammer, Will, Klein, or any number of other keyboard jockeys who have a gig in the political-entertainment business called the "news media."

Because we are in the middle of an economic crisis and Krugman is considered an expert in the field and one who (unlike many other people) kinda called it a while back-no real mystery there :shrug:. When many economists were pushing bubble based economies, he pointed out what was wrong with them.
He is an economist with a high profile column who has been right about more things than he has been wrong about.
At the end of the day I am not sure what Dowd, Krauthhammer etc. are experts in other than yapping. If they had some actual expertise in a field and they were public voices in that field and somehow that field was in a crisis affecting everyone, people on DU (and elsewhere) would be talking about their views. I am guessing it is that simple..


As for DU- in the highly skewed DU filter, he is basically now just viewed through the lens of the primaries by many people here who really seem to not do a whole lot more than post a lot (and I mean A LOT) here. Depending on who you supported, he is just a "Hillary guy" or an "Obama guy" now. The thing is there is more to Krugman than who he supported in the primaries or how he bashed Bush and that is recognized by people whose existence is not DU-centric.


The unhealthiest thing about DU to me is the number of people who post here who seem to have no life outside of the internet. I have my higher posting and lower posting times, but every time I come here it is basically the same set of people dividing themselves neatly into 2 positions on anyone/any issue. It kinda makes it hard for the forum as a whole to have a nuanced view of anything, or any input (unfortunately) from people who have any sort of life outside the internet-sad but imo true.

[Political Tiger]

29. I'm with you, I'm sick of hearing about Krugman.

He's either intentionally or unintentionally become the leader of the bash Obama movement, and although criticism is fine, when that's all one does, well...it gets old after awhile.

[Odin2005]

32. I think it's simply because that since he is a brilliant, nobel-winning economist people think...

...that he is infallible, ideologically impartial, and can do no wrong; a ridiculous attitude. Brilliant people are wrong often, too, and I think Krugman is wrong in many of his criticisms of Obama. I don't think he comprehends the political realities Obama has to deal with, especially with regards to not sending the Blue Dogs into foaming-at-the-mouth rants against Nationalization and "socialism" so he can get his legislation through.

[Mithreal]

44. No one on DU thinks Krugman is infallible. That is a straw man, no offense. nt

[quiller4]

33. No. He is usually interesting, sometimes reasonable

but I would not call him inflexible. One of the things I find interesting is that today he argues articulately for things he opposed 10-15 years ago. That is especially true when he writes about trade policy but it is true to some extent about banking and monetary policy, too.

I started reading him quite some time ago because he was one of few econ writers who didn't always support Republican economic policy.

I, too, find it curious why he evokes such extreme reactions from some on this board.

[Clio the Leo]

35. I dont, but it's just our latest thing.

We're seriously gonna have to stop letting the President take a day off .... leaves us with no news, so whatever the outrage is on Friday afternoon gets carried over through Sunday night. I cant even tell you what it was last week, but I know there was something. This time next week, I wont be able to remember the Krugman mess.

And this weekend is worse because the President's not coming back home until Monday morning.

I really had hoped he was a cyborg and would only need to be plugged in every night. This whole "taking the day off" is ridiculous. :)

[JimGinPA]

36. Please Refrain From Injecting Sanity Into This Board In The Future

K&R

[Undercurrent]

37. I agree.

I do think however, that the fact that Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner has a great impact on most people. People cite his Nobel status all over the place. Such a distinction often produces a glazed-over-eyes effect. "Wow, he's really smart, so he's probably right all the time."

I'm just saying that one might not want to tout a Nobel Laurent as the be-all-end-all authority on planet earth.

Take the internationally recognized war criminal Henry Kissinger for example. He is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Or Cordell Hull, who also went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He was the guy who was instrumental in turning back a ship filled with Jews fleeing Hitler. (Most of them later died in the camps.) His policy was overturned when the next ship of refugees was set to be turned back. Eleanor Roosevelt stepped in and prevented it.

Perspective.

[harun]

39. Don't know who he is and don't care.

[dorkulon]

40. Krugman was witing about the housing bubble yeas ago. He has a track recod of getting things right.

I think he should be the treasury secretary.

[Occam Bandage]

47. People were buying "Mr. Housing Bubble" T-Shirts in 2005.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2005-08-16-housing-bubble_x.htm


Pretty much everyone but Wall Street knew. It's good that he's not a moron, but "having a brain" shouldn't make him so special that DU goes apeshit every time he opens his mouth.

(Oh, and he specifically said he did not want Treasury Secretary, because he does not have the temperament to be good at the job.)

[FrenchieCat]

41. Krugman may be right,

But then again, he may be wrong.

Judging the case based on common sense detached of who Krugman is may be key.

I make my case for him being wrong here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8282342

[Mithreal]

42. FrenchieCat is right, judge his arguments on a case by case

and do not kill the messenger.

Some folks that are standing up for Krugman are of the don't kill the messenger type or despise ad hominem attacks.

Personally I have a lot more respect for Krugman when he talks economics then any Blue Dog Democrat or Republican and I don't see him as a wolf in sheep's clothing like some of my fellow DU'ers.

[Bonobo]

43. I am enthusiastically raising my hand to that one!

He is a man with an opinion. That's about it.

[Two Americas]

46. agreed, thanks n/t

...

[4lbs]

49. The thing I've noticed is that his most vehement supporters ask for any reasoned criticism of him,

and then when it is given, dismiss it with either:

"Well, I'll take the word of a Nobel-prize winning economist like Krugman, instead of <insert name here> on DU or some blog."

or

"Hmm.... who to believe.... Paul Krugman or some DU'er or blogger...."


I'm sure my criticism below will be met with one of the two above statements.

Why is Paul Krugman afraid to put his ideas and writings to the test in the REAL WORLD by serving on President Obama's economic cabinet in real capacity, not just in some feckless position on some council where they can claim credit for success and hide from the searing light of failure? Why did Krugman refuse President Obama's offer to serve in a cabinet position?

Is it because he doesn't want to face the possibility of being wrong? What if President Obama implemented Krugman's ideas exactly (assuming Congress went along 100% as well) and they failed? What then? Does he give back his Nobel prize and money? Does Krugman stop writing books? Stop writing newspaper and magazine columns? Would he allow himself to fade into obscurity because he would have been shown to be wrong? Would he even admit he was wrong?

It seems he'd rather stand on the sidelines watching while the economic house is burning, not pitching in to put it out. He would rather yell with a megaphone stamped "New York Times" about the job other people are doing to try to put it out. In a time when the economic situation is the most dire it's been for 75 years, he decides not to roll up his sleeves, jump in and help, but rather argue and criticize.

If you are trying to do a job, and someone is standing off to the side criticizing your performance and telling you how to do it, after refusing to help you him/her self, what is your response going to be?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. I don't understand why the guy's unassailable.

Clearly, he does have a lot to contribute to the conversation (and he doesn't, whether we want him to or not). And yes, clearly the guy is smart - he's earned his Nobel, no doubt. But to some on DU, he's absolutely beyond reproach, which is insanity, frankly. There isn't a man alive that has all the answers in economics - there never has been, and there never will be.

Furthermore, Krugman is blissfully able to promote whatever strategies he so pleases - the man's never been in charge of, well, anything. As such, even he would (and has) argued that he's entirely unsuited for politics, which just so happens to be exactly what he's commenting on.

To sum up - he deserves to have his arguments discussed and considered carefully. Beyond that, I don't see why people have taken his columns as if Moses himself chiseled them into stone.

[johnlucas]

52. No, you're not the only one

People get thrilled when they see somebody on TV everyday. Somebody who's got a column.

I think if he wanted his words to be taken more seriously he'd point an example of a country who has used his principles & prospered.
THEN he'd have a little more weight.

He might be right on some things, maybe many things...but in the end he's just writing a column. You have to do it the proper arena.
Maybe if he'd lobby publicly for Geithner's job. That's an idea. Let people know he's serious about actually solving problems hands-on instead of theoretically.

John Lucas