« Why do conservatives pretend Republicans aren't tough? | Main | What is Tom McMahon talking about? »

January 25, 2005

Comments

Here's my question: How does a man who sells t-shirts and tote bags touting wearers and carriers as part of the "Krugman Truth Squad" -- as if anyone besides their mother wouldn't immediately beat the geek up upon seeing it -- get to describe someone else as "one note?"

Of note: In the post above the one calling my friend Brendan a "pretentious leftist twerp" (we all know he's a twerp, but "pretentious" is so gratuitious), Luskin argues that the Social Security "crisis" starts the day the annual trust fund surplus begins to decline from its high point around 2012. Can the term actually be defined down any more?

I guess being a pretentious leftist twerp isn't as bad as being a dishonest right-wing hack.

I'd say that congrats are in order!...anyone who can be the subject of attack by one of the more one sided, unobjective "writers" and projectionists as Mr L can't be all bad. I always enjoyed your old site but had to syop reading Luskin's some time ago. As said by Ben..talk about an obsessed " one note Charley"...He is interesting when he writes about the "markets" but his blogging is, in the words of that sage Casey Kassum,..." Ponderous man,.. F'n ponderous."

I eagerly await Mr. Luskin's carefully thought-out response to your criticism. I am sure that he will upgrade you from "pretentious leftist twerp" to "elitist commie twit".

Gee, if Bush has shaped all policy the last 4 years why is it surprising that Krugman writes about Bush every week?

Brendan, you truly have command of the obvious in discovering that even a polemicist can make a factually based and logical argument. I am a lawyer. In litigation, expert witnesses are commonly hired by each side to present evidence in support of their case. Each are biased in favor of the side that hires them. However, that does not automatically mean that the evidence they provide is somehow false or incorrect. A prudent person would merely take what they say with a grain of salt and scrutinize their testimony with with contrary evidence.

Mr. Krugman's clear bias by itself doesn't automatically disqualify everything he says. Unfortunately, as exhaustively pointed out by Mr. Luskin on his website, his regular and repeated misstatements of fact do. I am not giving you specifics because all you have to do is review Mr. Luskin's website. He has thoroughly exposed the hundreds of false statements made by Mr. Krugman in his NYTimes column. Luskin has links to data and websites that substatntiate his arguments.

Krugman may be an academic economist at a prestigious school, but he has regulary compromised his credibility in his newspaper column, not just because he is a shrill partisan, but because he regulary makes false and misleading statements to attack anything associated with Republicans or Republican policy. You compromise your credibility when you try to deny that fact. I believe that Krugman is more concerned with the federal government losing a source of its power (i.e. dependence on the government in retirement) than he is with the sovency of social security.

The comments to this entry are closed.