Althouse: I'm concerned about Paul Krugman.

March 16, 2009

I'm concerned about Paul Krugman.

He doesn't know how to begin his column with an interesting sentence.

13 comments:

MadisonMan said...: The one close family member I have who lives in Europe is doing quite well for herself, despite significant health concerns (hers, and her husband's) that have been treated -- so far successfully -- by state Medicine.; 3/16/09, 7:51 AM
traditionalguy said...: I observe that Liberal Opinion Leaders are scrambling to get back out in front of their followers. It is too late now to be merely concerned about Obamanomics. The Financial train wreck has happened just like the Dems plans called for. The question now is who will do life saving EMT at the crash scene to save the wounded but living, and who will just watch and look concerned. The public senses now that this Crisis is too valuable for Obama/Pelosi to do anything for suffering victims. This growing popular realization that their Pretty New President and his ruling Congressional pals have abandoned them, and are only seeking the higher goals of the International Socialist Dream, is so strange that even Krugman is having a dissociative identity reaction.; 3/16/09, 8:02 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: In the beginning Paul Krugman walked with god... aka Ronald Reagan.

But then Krugman lost his way.. became empty, formless and dark... aka a liberal.; 3/16/09, 8:31 AM
J. Cricket said...: You're "concerned" about Krugman?

What a lame, candy-ass use of language!; 3/16/09, 8:37 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The Financial train wreck has happened just like the Dems plans called for."

Um, if you weren't paying attention, the financial train wreck has been underway for quite some time now. It's been a year since BearStearns collapsed, which was the first sign visible to most of the public that our economy had been raped, but which, like water on the stove, had taken some time before that to reach the boiling point . It's simply been accelerating since.; 3/16/09, 8:44 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: New York Times+Paul Krugman=Very Boring

…sheer human suffering…

What sheer human suffering? Employment still hovers around 90%.
Most of the people “suffering” caused their own problems either buying homes they should never have owned, failing to get legal advice before signing on the dotted line, or running up their credit cards and taking our car and other loans to finance their personal lifestyle. Whose fault is it if you cause your own suffering.

…reluctant to run up large debts to finance a stimulus that will convey many if not most of its benefits to voters in other countries…

It is called fiscal responsibility. Something Mr. Krugman and most politicians do not believe in.; 3/16/09, 9:04 AM
Henry said...: The New York Times headline writers earn their pay when it comes to Krugman.

One interesting aspect of having the Times as my home page is the occasional glimpse into the headline writer craft as a particular column or article is retitled.

In Krugman's defense, I think his columns are a lot more interesting now that he's boring again (e.g. now that he's writing more about economics than politics).

The screed style he perfected for Bush probably attracted more readers, but at the cost of anything worth reading.; 3/16/09, 10:41 AM
William said...: I know that an argument can be made for Frank Rich, but my choice for most annoying Times columnist is Paul Krugman. Rich has a plump, pampered look that makes his sympathy for the downtrodden look particularly forced and phony. But Krugman, with his small stature and quick evasive glances, looks like some little creature who is unsure whether to eat the morsel proferred or bite the hand that offers it.....So far as writing goes, Rich's background as a theater critic gives him an edge. When he makes a point that doesn't set my teeth on edge, he can actually be witty. I have on occasion actually read an entire column. But Krugman's background in economics works against style and coherence. It is very difficult for a fat woman to play the romantic lead in anything but opera. It is just as difficult for an economist to write anything but turgid prose. Only in the field of economics could someone like John Galbraith be considered a lucid writer.....As I say, it's a difficult decision naming the most annoying, but taking into account the fact that he's won the Nobel Prize, writes without wit, and has the look of a registered sex offender, I feel Paul Krugman is far and away the most annoying Times columnist. Surely people of good will can agree on this.; 3/16/09, 11:06 AM
John Salmon said...: I'm concerned about the unbearable triteness of Krugman.; 3/16/09, 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm "concerned" about the NYT. So much so, my next bumper sticker will read,

Krugman lied. The Times died.; 3/16/09, 3:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: The financial crisis has been a bubble ready to burst since 2006 when the housing money pump ran out of new borrowers. That the Dems and the Repubs tried to cruise on along 2 more years as if everything would be ok while they got out of the market themselves tells us that the popping of the real estate bubble was saved up for the 2008 Election. When the Dems popped it last September they won easily. Now they dont know what they should do next except operate by Obama's favorite take the Government Money and hide game. Obama is still useful to them, but he may not be left in the driver's seat for much longer unless he shows some competence. He knows this very well and is very nervous about his future. What will Mr Obama pull out of his bag next?; 3/16/09, 3:47 PM
Ralph L said...: has the look of a registered sex offender
I knew something about him gives me the creeps, but I never connected "sex" and "Krugman" before.

I'm concerned his bugged eyes may be caused by Grave's Disease.; 3/16/09, 5:46 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: What I am worried about is that anyone actually listens to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman.

He is the major voice behind the Keynsian blowout that we are having. He is the lead advocate of spending in whatever way the Democrats in Congress want to spend money as a stimulus - and never mind that it didn't work the last time it was tried.

The first problem is that this isn't his area of expertise. Yes, he got a Nobel prize this year, but not for anything close to this area of economics. There is no reason to believe that he is any better versed in this area than the average Economics PhD.

But combined with this is his known proclivity to prostitute himself (as seen in his advising of Enron).

So, to think that his columns are anything beyond pretextual justification for liberal spending priorities is questionable.; 3/16/09, 10:05 PM