Krugman Concedes Defeat
I don't usually see the words "marvelous" and "Krugman" in a sentence together, but Fred Douglass over at The American Thinker has the good news (hat tip Cindy Simpson):
A marvelous thing happened over on Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times last week. Krugman effectively conceded defeat on a range of economic debates. Who defeated him? People who posted comments on his New York Times blog. Mere commenters.
Once upon a time, Professor Krugman gushed "I love my commenters." Why? They showered him with fawning praise: "Paul, you are a God-send for those of us who appreciate a superior intellect with common sense! Thanks for applying your brilliance," and "Paul, dig deep dude. You are brilliant."
But how the times have changed.
Now, whenever the professor sings his one note tune--austerity: bad, stimulus: good, tax cuts: bad, Keynes: good--his commenters scribble away long posts, full of data and analysis, applying the sand to Krugman's flimsy economic vasoline. As Douglass writes, the comments responding to Krugman were "reasoned. They were knowledgeable. They carried citations to economic science literature that one might expect in a Ph.D. dissertation."
Here are some pretty damning examples of Krugman getting sand kicked in his face on his own beach:
Matching Krugman's claim that government can "create wealth by printing money," several posters cited the latest economic science showing that the "multipliers" that Keynesians use are wrong. They further noted that Krugman had used these wrong multipliers seventeen months ago to predict incorrectly that Obama's stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%.
And so Krugman's blog presented the most unforgivable conclusion: Krugman had actually been wrong. As he had been when he advocated low interest rates and the creation of a housing price inflation in 2001, one of the causes of current economic difficulties.
Things then got still worse. When Krugman repeated his claim that Bush's tax cuts had "caused" the deficit and damaged the economy, commenters first taught Krugman how to count. They then cited two papers by the Romers showing that tax cuts help economies. Christina Romer is, of course, the chief economic advisor to President Obama.
When Krugman repeated one of his "debt is good" posts, posters linked to the economic science from Reinhardt and Rogoff showing that high debt is inimical to economic recovery.
As a result of such posts from the commenters--"ranters" and "trolls," as Krugman has come to call them--the professor has changed his comments moderation policy. Now, comments can be no longer than "three inches." As Douglass says, Krugman's "thinking must have been thus: Three inches are sufficient to write "Krugman is brilliant," but not sufficient to present a documented and persuasive rebuttal to whichever of Krugman's standard arguments he was peddling that day."
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Krugman Concedes Defeat
Damn, you beat me to it--this was in my file of items to write about. I hesitated because it seemed contradictory to post about expressing civility to the Left and then immediately chortle at Krugman. But this is really worth a hearty chortle.
Re: Krugman Concedes Defeat
Claire, your comment reminds me of James Taranto's take on Krugman--that maybe "Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely to make our job easy." Either way, a chortle indeed!
Aug '10
Re: Krugman Concedes Defeat
Emily Esfahani Smith: Now, comments can be no longer than "three inches."
I could guess what would come out if this statement were fed into the "reliable joke machine".
Jun '10
Re: Krugman Concedes Defeat
James Taranto exposes an interesting instance where Krugman disagrees with yet another troll: himself.
I couldn't think of any three inch textbook jokes.