« What are Ron Wyden and Max Baucus talking about? | Main | Spencer Bachus, Bill O'Reilly and the anti-dissent brigade »

May 25, 2005


It's a shame that Okrent couldn't work in some examples of Krugman's sleight of hand, and it's true that many instances cited by bloggers are merely opinion -- sometimes incorrect opinion -- but there are a mountain of actual examples to back up Okrent's assertion. The fact that he didn't mention them does not actually mean they don't exist.

There was the time Krugman asserted that stop loss orders kept soldiers in the military past their agreed terms -- despite the fact that stop loss orders and extensions are a part of the "agreed terms", and are explicitly and repeatedly mentioned in the contracts troops sign.

There's his incredibly tendentious reading of the economic signals in order to warn of stagflation in an economy already under the historically accepted NAIRU, and with strong GDP growth. (you can't be stagnant AND growing strongly)

There was his assertion that the White House "pressured analysts", despite the fact that the Senate Intelligence committee concluded that "When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgements conform with administration policies on Iraq's WMD programs, not a single analyst answered "yes"." Now, perhaps Krugman has his own secret sources for this information, but he didn't actually mention any...

There are the too-many-to-link times that Krugman has flatly contradicted his own previous statements. There's his complete revision of the cause of the South American economic collapses. There's quite a lot of that sort of thing -- far more than I'll link -- and it's a shame that Okrent couldn't mention some of it.

Krugman is an exceptional academic economist. As a pundit, however, he's an on-message shill, with all the sleight of hand that accompanies such a position.

The comments to this entry are closed.