The ubiquitous Nobel-winning economics professor and New York Times columnist has in recent weeks been hammering the Obama administration for its timidity. In his recent essay in Rolling Stone, Krugman praised the scale of the administration's market intervention, but suggested that "the current economic disaster demands even more aggressive action than Obama has taken so far."
Well, Krugman's calls for even more collectivization are getting some attention in the left-wing press. Newsweek's new cover story features Krugman in an essay entitled, "Obama’s Nobel Headache." The article, by Evan Thomas, portrays Krugman as "nervous, shy, sweet and fiercely sure of himself." But Krugman's getting a cordial cold shoulder from President Obama, which is an interesting situation, considering the following passage:
Krugman has a bit of a reputation for settling scores. "He doesn't suffer fools. He doesn't like hauteur in any shape or form. He doesn't like to be f––ked with," says his friend and colleague Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz.If he doesn't get his way with a bolder direction from Obama, don't be surprised to see even more strident hit pieces against the Democrats' economic program. That's the theme Mike Allen takes up in his piece at The Politico, "Krugman: The Left's New Anti-Obama"(via Memeorandum):
What is striking about this development is that Obama’s most thoughtful critic is taking on the president from the left at a time when, as Jonathan Alter notes, so many others are reflexively arguing that the administration is trying too much too soon.See also my essay, "Democrats to Milk Economic Crisis for Trillions," where I note, "This is why progressive leftists love Paul Krugman. The guy's a Princeton economist and Nobel laureate. More importantly, the man's an "establishment" statist who can use his "credentials" to discredit those who rightly repudiate his socialist program."
2 comments:
Now I have a conundrum.
Do I want Obama to fail so that I can say, "Ha ha, you failed and your ideas are losers," and risk having Krugman "vindicated" (although he would not be technically vindicated as none of his ideas would actually be proven right, he would consider himself vindicated simply if Obama fails because he can say "I told you so," even though Obama's failure would not, alone, vindicate any one of the alternatives put forth)?
Or, do I hope Obama succeeds now that Krugman has really put himself out there so that we can ALL say to Krugman, "You are a total failure and you were clearly wrong"?
Somethings gotta give, here. Somebody will be wrong.
Of course, Door #3 could be that the entire system collapses and we take a hard turn to the right and both Obama and Krugman are marginalized...
Krugman's so-called Nobel is not of the first rank variety for inventing an economic theory that has become accepted by most economists---as the U. of Chicago has garnered from almost a dozen of its brilliant economists of world rank.
Rather the Krugman "prize" is for attitudinal posturing, not actual scholarship. Krugman has about as much cred among "real" economic theorists as Gore does among climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc.
Both are scientific hierophants, leading schools of attitudinal posturing rather than scholarship, with thousands of pseudo-"scientists" signing on to obtain grants and other perks from a corrupt hierarchy of politicized quacks in charge of "sustainable" buzz trends.
Krugman is as ersatz as Wilentz, hence their friendship. And the Nobel dodo-committee has virtually destroyed the brand ever since Jimmy Carter and Yassir Arafat shared the same Peace Prize. Gore-bot deserved it more than those two.
Post a Comment