4 ms·

We can start with Krugman in particular. He puts opposing views in the worst possible light and makes personal attacks on the virtues of his opponents. Those ar

We can start with Krugman in particular. He puts opposing views in the worst possible light and makes personal attacks on the virtues of his opponents. Those are not the debating practices of an intellectually honest individual. Whenever I am reading a Krugman column one adjective repeatedly leaps to mind: juvenile. Krugman gives off the vibe that you'd have to be an idiot to disagree with him. But I've read many thoughtful writers who disagree with Krguman, giving him far more credit than he would ever give someone on the other side.

grandalf 15y ago
Well put. While Krugman occasionally makes interesting points, his style is abhorrent. I'd have more respect for him if he'd written about the protests the first day they were happening and hadn't tried to frame it as a partisan issue with his usual cast of good guys and bad guys.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  The thing is that Krugman isn't framing the protests or the current economic crisis in traditional partisan terms. His columns and blog posts for at least 6 months now have continually heaped blame on Obama, Congressional Republicans, and European officials from a variety of countries and parties for not following Keynes advice and heeding the lessons we learned during the Great Depression.
  - wyclif 15y ago
    Krugman has heaped blame on Obama? Maybe in a mild way, but in other ways he treats the Obama Administration with kid gloves. Case in point: here are a few of the top 20 businesses that contributed the most money to the Obama presidential campaign: Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 Citigroup Inc $736,771 UBS AG $532,674 US Government $517,908 Morgan Stanley $512,232 Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 Clearly, the narrative that it is only Republicans coddling the upper strata of the American plutocracy is failing.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - ChrisLTD 15y ago
      Krugman has noted Obama's cozy relationship to the bankers before. Just last week he had this to say in his column about the protests: "The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confrontin...
      - grandalf 15y ago
        Do you consider Krugman a voice of dissent though? In my opinion he chimes in once the issue is already "safe" and rarely says anything that would endanger his status as a columnist or his relationships with powerful people.
        ChrisLTD 15y ago
        I would only go as far as to say that Krugman is a dissenter from the prevailing line of economic thought in the United States and Europe. He's useful precisely because the prevailing thought crippled our economy and has little success in repairing it. I can't really speak to his relationship with powerful people.
  - sethg 15y ago
    And during the Clinton Administration, he criticized protectionist Democrats.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

grandalf 15y ago

Well put. While Krugman occasionally makes interesting points, his style is abhorrent. I'd have more respect for him if he'd written about the protests the first day they were happening and hadn't tried to frame it as a partisan issue with his usual cast of good guys and bad guys.

ChrisLTD 15y ago
The thing is that Krugman isn't framing the protests or the current economic crisis in traditional partisan terms. His columns and blog posts for at least 6 months now have continually heaped blame on Obama, Congressional Republicans, and European officials from a variety of countries and parties for not following Keynes advice and heeding the lessons we learned during the Great Depression.
- wyclif 15y ago
  Krugman has heaped blame on Obama? Maybe in a mild way, but in other ways he treats the Obama Administration with kid gloves. Case in point: here are a few of the top 20 businesses that contributed the most money to the Obama presidential campaign: Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 Citigroup Inc $736,771 UBS AG $532,674 US Government $517,908 Morgan Stanley $512,232 Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 Clearly, the narrative that it is only Republicans coddling the upper strata of the American plutocracy is failing.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    Krugman has noted Obama's cozy relationship to the bankers before. Just last week he had this to say in his column about the protests: "The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confrontin...
    - grandalf 15y ago
      Do you consider Krugman a voice of dissent though? In my opinion he chimes in once the issue is already "safe" and rarely says anything that would endanger his status as a columnist or his relationships with powerful people.
      - ChrisLTD 15y ago
        I would only go as far as to say that Krugman is a dissenter from the prevailing line of economic thought in the United States and Europe. He's useful precisely because the prevailing thought crippled our economy and has little success in repairing it. I can't really speak to his relationship with powerful people.
- sethg 15y ago
  And during the Clinton Administration, he criticized protectionist Democrats.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]