« Deficit nonsense | Main | Go Arnold go »

January 07, 2005

Comments

I agree with Krugman on everything substantive. But I don't like his tone. He is consistently ad hominem about the Bushes. (I am too, but it's at the breakfast table, not the Op-Ed page of the NY Times.)

He'd be a lt more persuasive if he dropped that tone.

DB

I'm a professional actuary. I have found Krugman's discussion of Social Security to sometimes be dishonest. He has been willing to misuse data in order to support his political arguments. Unfortunately, his misuse of data isn't apparent to a layperson. Because he's such a noted economist and because he writes for the New York Times, he gets away with sloppiness.

The really sad fact is that it seems that both Krugman and Nyhan don't seem to grasp the fact that Social Security is at best a Constitutionally questionable Ponzi scheme...

Can anyone find anywhere in the Constitution or the amendments where it says that the federal government is suppose to bail people out in their old age?

On Krugman, Mr. Nyhan says "therefore his writing is dismissed as partisan hackery even when it's not.

How does a non-expert judge whether Krugman has crossed into partisan hackery on the Social Security debate?

Just for example, here is Krugman engaging in a deliberate misrepresentation of the legal security provided by the Social Security Trust Fund; here he is deliberately overestimating the fees that would likely be associated with personal accounts.

Look, Ann Coulter is fun (for some folks, I guess), and so is ER, but I don't think they are taken as gospel for news on politics or medicine. However, there seem to be people who think that Krugman would not let his politics interfere with his views as a professional economist, despite evidence to the contrary.

The comments to this entry are closed.