Friday
Apr152016
Krugman's Biggest Lie
By Marie
I am not linking Paul Krugman's column today, but you all know where to find it. I did write a comment on the New York Times page. I held back in hopes my comment might be published, but I recognize I have an iffy chance of making the cut. Here's what I wrote, in as circumspect a way as possible:
This is the most shocking column I have ever read in the New York Times. You have accused Bernie Sanders of being a racist who thinks, you know, that black people should get only 3/5ths of a vote.
That is a flat-out lie.
As even a casual observer of politics knows, Sanders is doing what every single candidate in a contested race does: puts his best spin on his relative position. Candidates who are 20 points down in polls will say, "I think we're going to surprise the pollsters, blah-blah. We'll pull this thing out." Every once in a great while, fact follows spin. (See Sanders, Michigan.)
There's a double irony here in that you accuse Sanders of being anti-black in the same week Hillary Clinton (and, as further irony would have it, Bill De Blasio [whom Krugman cites as a swell example of an anti-racist]) made a joke based on the hyper-racist assumption that "colored people" are lazy. When criticized for this jaw-dropping lapse, Clinton blamed De Blasio.
Since I don't know much about economics, I have relied on your analyses. Perhaps I've misplaced my trust. I'm wondering now if "every word you write is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" Because this column is a lie.
Addendum: BTW, if you want to know how Krugman's column should have been written, Sahil Kapur of Bloomberg provides a good example.
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (15)
I did read the column by PK and the comments. The comments were variations on what you said. Since they were not so direct, they were published. I think that many others have hesitated to say anything because of the spitefulness of the column itself. The number of comments is way down from his usual responses. I have never seen PK do this sort of thing. Who bought him?
As for the debates: Hillary is a piece of work. She generates a fog of negativity. I couldn't keep watching.
Update:
You're on Marie!!
The overwhelming number of comments are roasting PK.
Great comment, Marie. I just read it on the Times site. Not sure where the real PK is, but he sure isn't writing on Mondays and Fridays.
Right On, Dear Marie!
Agree. What Krugman misses, and what many of us know...politics, or business as usual, is not working. Too many people without hope or possibility equals bad things happening. That's history. The one that the privileged few seem to forget. Short-term profit must also equal short-term memory. Yes, pragmatism is useful and necessary, but too many have lost too much. City in the clouds for the few...the ash heap for the rest.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/
For all my admiration of Obama and his presidency, one thing really gnaws at my vitals. He has taken the bounty of gold coins from the Kings of Wall Street and donned the Red Coat. This piece brings into sharp focus what I have tried to suppress in my logic but cannot deny in my gut.
Bernie is the only way out of this deepening quick sand. Is it better to knock down the flimsy, straining supports and to rebuild from its debris, or is it better to continue to “duct tape” this corrupt corporate structure? What "I” am advocating is what our country’s founders sought to do in shaking off the oppressive yolk of its British overlords. Just as King George refused to listen and heed our complaints, the Kings of Wall Street refuse to listen and place themselves in the same peril.
Do not underestimate an enraged citizenry. And we don’t want “Hillary the Hessian”.
Sorry if this comes off as too strong for the CW erudite posters which I greatly appreciate. But I needed to say it.
It was another sleepless night on the seacoast, when Krugman's column came online somewhere after 3:30 am. It took a while longer before the first comment appeared, but by 4:27 am or there-about as the nineteenth one went up...it was obvious this was not going to bode well for the professor's latest Bernie bash. As I noted several days ago; lately, he is digging in his heels espousing views/positions now seemingly counter to what his 'former' cheering team has come to expect from him.
The TBTF 'living wills' story, which also prompted a (strangely) revisionist stance on the causes behind the 2008 financial meltdown is another. After reading and rereading today's column, I (almost) might have given him a pass as certain points were plausible ...that is, until suddenly, the uncalled-for slap of the last sentence in his second last paragraph. It was a step too far for this now wide-awake insomniac.
" And sneering at millions of voters is truly beyond the pale, especially for a progressive. "
Stop! "Paulie K., We Hardly Knew Ye"
I have only one explanation for this bizarre personality change in the formerly sane, (I thought), Paul Krugman. Early Onset Alzheimer's. Wish I could administer a neuropsych evaluation, because he needs one!
@MAG: This was the bit that so enraged me:
"Can you imagine Democratic Party insiders deciding to deny the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes, on the grounds that African-American voters don’t count as much as whites?
"No, claims that Clinton wins in the South should be discounted are really aimed at misleading Sanders supporters, giving them an unrealistic view of the chances that their favorite can still win — and thereby keeping the flow of money and volunteers coming."
Put that together & Krugman is claiming, "The only reason Sanders says black votes don't count is so he can get money out of you (probably white) rubes."
I can sorta see where Krugman is coming from, & two factors may be at play. (1) His wife is black, so he may view any remarks that could be interpreted as anti-black as beyond the pale. (2) He is now as much a part of the "East Coast elite establishment" as anyone, & he's as wealthy as or wealthier than many of said establishment. He's the kind of guy the Clinton Foundation would hit up for a contribution.
But (1) doesn't hold up when you consider that he's let pass both Hillary & Bill Clinton's recent racist kerfuffles. And (2) doesn't hold up when you consider that his recent path to bounty has come not so much because he's a highly-regarded economist but because he's "established" himself as having "the conscience of a liberal."
In a blogpost today Krugman writes of Sanders, "... made me distrust both the movement and the man." Look at that word "distrust." I don't know this, as I don't know Krugman, but I wouldn't be surprised if, like many of us, he is most distrustful of those with whom he most closely identifies; in this case, a fellow New York Jew. (Krugman grew up on Long Island.) It may be the same reason I don't trust Hillary Clinton; I'm pretty damned familiar with people who are a lot like her, and in fact, I could have become much like her myself.
Marie
To Dan Lowery -
<< Sorry if this comes off as too strong for the CW erudite posters which I greatly appreciate. But I needed to say I'm. >>
No need to apologize for a very thoughtful & articulate offering.
And thank you for the path to the Wall Street piece.
Cheers From NYC . . .
Regrettably, also home to Krugman & Drumpf.
And yet -
So enjoyed one (of the many) of our street-side's protesting placards:
"WE SHALL OVER-COMB"
("I Love New York [Values]")
Marie (in re Krugman):
Been there, read that, and I sure hope your comment rises to the top of the recommended list. (I did my part.) This kind of thing is getting old, and I don't understand why people like PK keep it up, since the usual response from us "Bernie Bros" -- I actually prefer to think of myself as a "Sandernista" -- is to whip out our checkbooks and make another contribution to the Rainbow-Unicorn-Puppies&Ponies-Fringe-Dreamer candidate.
Because he's, well, not. In global terms, he's pretty much centrist as (all other) modern industrial nations go. The plutocracy can't stand that people are finally getting it, and feeling the Bern.
Dr. K. If not now, when? Hillary is a guarantee of more of the failure of the last forty years. The slow down hill slide of the majority of Americans will continue with no end in sight.
Of course President Bernie would not be successful but would be a rallying point for those in need and a starting point from which to rescue Democracy. Our failures would be demonstrated and the public educated from the "bully pulpit."
Change has to start someplace and it will certainly not start with the timid politico Hillary.
Here is a rousing debate between Robert Scheer and Torie Olsen re: Hillary and Bernie. Most interesting.
href="http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/longtime_progressive_robert_scheer_and_torie_osborn_20160415">http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/longtime_progressive_robert_scheer_and_torie_osborn_20160415
When Bernie "launched one of the most powerful indictments of modern capitalism" I'm wondering whether he thought about mentioning the great wealth of the Catholic Church and the idea that maybe it's time to start taxing religious entities. What a bundle of $$$ we could get in OUR coffers––even that fake religious Scientology Scam could cough up a few million. Not to take away Sander's "this is how the world should work" speech I couldn't help agree with Biden–-much of it wouldn't correspond with the Church's edicts ––hence, the Pope who waves his hand over the people proclaiming love and compassion has neither love or compassion for many who don't fit into the round hole of ancient teachings.
Trying that link again to the above mentioned debate:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/longtime_progressive_robert_scheer_and_torie_osborn_20160415