What Are Your Thoughts on Paul Krugman?

I think he's great. It irks me when some on the right say that he's a ruthless liar and that he distorts a lot of things.

Donald Luskin's "Krugman Truth Squad" at the National Review?

and author of several books.


Donald Luskin works at some investment bank

Nuff said.

Someone posted all of this really juicy dirt on Luskin a few weeks ago.

It was some information including the fact that Luskin dropped out of Yale and crashed with the fall of the stock market a few years ago.

I've had a few people tell me that Krugman is a vicious liar, but I'm always going to have a hard time believing Luskin, someone who responded to Krugman's terms and graphs by saying that Krugman can only offer "academic economic jargon."

Luskin's opening paragraph on the WorldCom fraud

Who is guilty of fraud? WorldCom, or the financial media that has covered WorldCom? Perhaps both. WorldCom may have mis-stated its earnings for the last five quarters, but the media has egregiously mis-stated key facts about WorldCom this week, first fomenting panic and then promoting a false sense of security.

:thumbsup:

The best op-ed columnist in the world right now.

Of course the right wing hates him. He lays bare their ridiculous ideology and shows how worthless their beloved supply side economics is. He calls the Bushies on their lies every time. And he is a REAL ECONOMIST, well written, highly respected, and that's something the Larry Kudlows of the world can only dream about.

Andrew Sullivan seems have really taken an extreme dislike to Krugman and trashes him every chance he gets. For a while Krugman tried to respond, but now he just ignores Sullivan (and rightly so).

Do those on the right ever give examples of these "ruthless lies"?

what he writes is pretty well documented and I haven't seen anybody point out a specific article he wrote or pointhe made and illustrated how it was a lie becasue the "truth" was different.

All I've ever seen is something like this "Krugman's a liar becasue everybody knows the economy is improving".

is he is writing about Iraq which is far from his field.

It's a dead giveaway. "Ruthless" lies (not just lies)
"Brutal" dictator (as opposed to the un-brutal kind), etc, etc, ad nauseum, the hyperbole hooks freepy people and they get all caught up in the emotional expression of the descriptive and don't even pay attention to what the hell the rest of the sentence was about. "evil" empire, "liberal"media, "special" rights, or even better, "special" privileges. It's like a damn soap opera every time they open their mouths; that must be the common denominator for right wingers, you have to be a drama junkie.

Dems and other progressives seem to veer way over to the other side of the spectrum toward bland intellectualism, which is totally boring and has no mass appeal. The only example I can come up with like this for dems is "vast" as in Hilary's vast right-wing conspiracy.

Sullivan's not to be taken seriously, at least as far as his blog is concerned.

Luskin has a "Krugman Truth Sqaud" bit at the National Review's site:

http://nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin-archive.asp

Krugman's embarrassed Luskin several times, but Luskin keeps on plugging away.

telling the Truth.

What gets the right wing is that he's right, can document it, and lo and behold, everything he predicts pretty much comes true. The Dumb-o-crats need to get him on board so they can fire back at the Nazi's lies about the economy.

.

even William Saffire is interesting when he isn't having seances with Nixon.

He's just merciless in going after Bush. That's what makes him stand out from the crowd.

He's done a fantastic job of exposing Bushie
corruption and hypocrisy.

my newest hero!! I hope when Kucinich becomes president, that he includes him in his administration.

Bill Moyers, too!!

:) :) :)

eom

I was thinking! :)

;-)

He is a shining light in the darkness of this administration. I write to him every so often, usually just to encourage him and let him know I appreciate his voice. He deserves a Pulitzer. And a Nobel!

Much earlier in his career, he was thought of in his field as a future Nobel Prize winner. (He taught at MIT for a number of years.)

I met him at a party once a long time ago.

...I love his column to death, but note: he rejects the "liberal" label--his record is very much that of a centrist, free-market, free-trade economist. Look at his history. Back in the early 90s he was condemned by the Left for being too much of a free-marketeer.

He just kinda doesn't like LYING as a basis for economic decision making. That puts him rather at odds with the Bush administration, which is why the right wing hates him. But that hatred doesn't make him a leftie (not that there's anything wrong with that!), much as they'd like to tar him with the label.

He's said it himself, or at least he's allowed it to be be printed. The thing is, he's moderately liberal. And he's not afraid to make enemies on the left, either. He and Robert Reich hate each other.

Krugman, Senator Byrd and Jimmy Breslin are the only people with integrity and honesty.

Who on the right says that Krugman is "a ruthless liar and that he distorts a lot of things?" I doubt anyone reputable on the right has said that. If you have a link, then cool. But otherwise, it's counterproductive to air opinions from the deep-orc crowd on right.

This thread is sort of a hit-and-run on Paul Krugman, a very respected journalist, economist, and pundit. You know, "Some people say Composed Thinker wears gender-inappropriate underwear and goes to porn theaters, but I disagree with that."

I hadn't noticed that that was what some of the posters were doing...

I wasn't trying to disrespect Krugman. I love the guy. I want to be a professor and columnist like him.

I was just trying to have some people give me their thoughts and help me sort through the bullshit.

INDEED I DO. It's so rare for me to see truth in journalism I BECOME IRRATIONAL.

I think his voice is that valuable.

Like Harry Truman, he "tells the truth and Republicans think it's hell."

EOM

...I agree with practically everything he says.

Right now, Paul Krugman's columns are the only reason I read the NYT. He is the only one at that increasingly muddled and compromised rag who who really gets it. He understands the real damage shrubco is doing to this country and he is doing everything he can to stop it. Krugman has earned my respect through his words, and that is the only way he will ever lose it.

But he was a bit hard on Clinton when he was prez.

Sounds more like Bill O'Rielly.

Both are, actually.

The O'Reilly Factor

Bill O'Reilly.....Jeff Richards
Thomas Woodward.....Chris Parnell
Susan van Etten.....Amy Poehler

Bill O'Reilly: Hello, everybody, I'm Bill O'Reilly, thank you for watching The Factor. Our top story tonight: Was bankrupt energy giant Enron responsible for the power shortage last year that rocked California? My next guest says no, it was the "environmentalists". He's Thomas Woodward, an attorney with the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Woodward, thanks for coming on The Factor.

Thomas Woodward: My pleasure, Bill.

Bill O'Reilly: Now, uh, Mr. Woodward, in your article, you say that environmentalists simply refuse to acknowledge California's growing need for electricity.

Thomas Woodward: That's right.

Bill O'Reilly: You also say that California has more people than any other state. I say New York State has more people - tell me where I'm wrong!

Thomas Woodward: < confused > Um.. well.. Bill.. actually, California is the most populous state.

Bill O'Reilly: I don't know, Counselor. I live in New York, and I walk down the streets every day, and there's people everywhere! You can't move! You know what I mean? Last week, I was in California, went to the beach in Malibu. Nobody! Practically empty. So, for my money, New York's got more people. Probably New Jersey, too.

Thomas Woodward: Well, Bill, your own experience nonwithstanding, each of the last four censuses has clearly shown -

Bill O'Reilly: Sorry, Counselor, not buying it! Not buying it!

Thomas Woodward: Bill, I swear to you, California is our largest state!

Bill O'Reilly: Look, Mr. Woodward, you've got your opinion, I've got mine. We're not gonna settle this tonight.

Thomas Woodward: Actually, we could setlle this tonight! Do you have an almanac?

Bill O'Reilly: Sorry, Counselor, nice try. But I'll give you the last word.

Thomas Woodward: Is there someone else here I could talk to?

Bill O'Reilly: Thanks for coming on The Factor.

Next up on The Factor, our Unresolved Problem segment. Once again, the ongoing saga of San Francisco Giants slugger, Barry Bonds. As you know, Mr. Bonds has repeatedly claimed that, during the 2001 baseball season, he hit 73 home runs. We here at The Factor very much doubt this. We even invited him on the show to argue his case, but he keeps ducking us! Mr. Bonds, by your continued refusal to appear on The Factor and take the heat, you have proven that you're not only a liar, but a coward as well. And even if you had hit 73 home runs, it's still a far cry from the 755 Hank Aaron hit in 1974. And that's tonight's Unresolved Problems.

Now, in our Back of the Book segment: Is human activity really changing Earth's atmosphere? Our next guest thinks so. She's Susan van Etten, Professor of Environmental Sciences at Tulane University. Miss van Etten, thanks for coming on The Factor.

Susan van Etten: Thank you, Bill.

Bill O'Reilly: Now, when you say greenhouse gasses, what are we talking about here.

Susan van Etten: Well, principally, Bill, carbon dioxide or CO2 -

Bill O'Reilly: Hold it, hold it, Professor! CO2?

Susan van Etten: Yes. Bill, you see, as the result of most industrial processes, carbon combines with oxygen.

Bill O'Reilly: Oh, sorry, Professor, not buying it. I know that's a byline, but I'm just not buying it. You've got carbon, you've got oxygen. And my gut tells me, when push comes to shove, oxygen is just not gonna combine with a carbon. I don't care what you do to the carbon!

Susan van Etten: Well.. Bill.. under intense heat, carbon does -

Bill O'Reilly: Sorry, Professor, I just don't buy it! But let's move on. You say in your piece that greenhouse gasses have been found on the top of Mount Everest.

Susan van Etten: That's correct.

Bill O'Reilly: You also say that Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain peak. I say the world's tallest peak is Space Mountain - tell me where I'm wrong!

Susan van Etten: < stunned > Space Mountain?

Bill O'Reilly: Space Mountain! In the Pocano Mountain Range, part of Joshua Tree National Park in Alaska? Where am I wrong?

Susan van Etten: Okay.. um.. first of all, Space Mountain is not a mountain. I beleive it's a roller coaster. Also, the Pocano Mountains are in Pennsylvania, and are not part of any national park, least of all Joshua Tree National Park, which has mountains. And it's in California, not Alaska.

Bill O'Reilly: Hey, have you ever been to Alaska, Professor?

Susan van Etten: Bill, I was just explaining -

Bill O'Reilly: I'm sorry, Professor! I asked you a simple question: Have you ever been to Alaska?

Susan van Etten: < meekly > No.

Bill O'Reilly: Well, I appreciate you're coming on The Factor. And I'll give you the last word.

Susan van Etten: Uh..

< time's up >

Bill O'Reilly: And now for a look at our Viewer Mail, about a story on overcrowding in kindergarten classrooms.

Janet Miller of Park City, Utah writes: "Bill, normally I'm a fan of 'The Factor's' hard hitting style, but your interview with the five-year old girl about class size was a little too rough. Telling her she was 'out of her mind' was simply uncalled for."

Janet, here at The Factor, we pull no punches, When you come on the show, you gotta know that.

Ed Gekas, Emhurst, Illinois: "Bill, your tough, incisive questions had that five year old girl squirming. The bottom line is, you had the facts. She didn't."

And finally, Paul Jemino of Islip, New York writes: "Bill, even though the girl hurt her case by crying, she was right, and you were wrong. Albany, not New York City, is the capital of New York State."

Well, Paul, I thank you for watching. But I still say New York City is the state capital. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And finally, our Most Ridiculous Item of the Day: This week, Congress voted $1.2 million of your tax dollars to the University of Iowa to study breast cancer! Come on! Don't study it, guys. Cure it! Ridiculous! < laughs > Well, that's all the time we have for The Factor. As always, we thank you for watching. I'm Bill O'Reilly. Good night.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01moreilly.phtml

in reporting.

Does he treat Hillary C. and Jesse Jackson as he does those in the Chimpadministration?

How's that for independent?

so that you may form your own conclusions on the matter? YOu stated in another thread that you depended on Du'ers to provide you with rebuttals. My problem with doing so is it enables intellectual laziness on your part.

In addition to sometimes depending on others for pure information, I just like to hear what other people have to say.

say by framing the question to inspire them to post in a manner defensive of Krugman. That precludes many valuable things they might say were your question phrased in a less baiting manner.

But would this thread get so many hits if it were phrased any other way?

Your motive keeps shifting to accomodate the question posed.

Composed Thinker, how did you come to bestow
that moniker upon thyself?

I 've been reading him for the past two years and he always knocks me out!