Forgive me, but I can’t let this one fade into the ether just yet. A previous comment from Akefa stating that “the economy has only gone down since Clinton left office” , and citing “the esteemed economist Krugman’s book The Great Unraveling ” as a reference was certainly well-timed if nothing else. Had I ridden the train this morning rather than driven, I would have already read Brian Wesbury’s piece on nothing other than……the Economy. Wesbury is chief economist at GKST, and has been a voice in the wilderness for the past couple of years, pointing out the undercurrent of strength in the domestic U.S. Economy. As the numbers have steadily improved, he has picked up quite a bit of company. These few lines jumped off the page for me as I consumed a late dinner this evening:
“After growing at a 14.5% annualized rate in the first-half of 2000, business fixed investment stopped in its tracks and grew just 1% in the second half. The Clinton White House knew this was happening. A member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), Kathryn Shaw, said in August 2001, “economic growth had started to fade in the fall of 2000.” Mr. Clinton’s CEA chairman, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote in 2002 that “the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office.” Al Gore said that “the economic downturn really began in March of 2000.”
Obviously, the esteemed economist Paul Krugman holds views that are in direct conflict with the very people who presided over the start of the recession, illustrating that Mr. Clinton & Co. were the beneficiaries of some very fortunate timing, and that my friend Akefa is decidedly not.
Strange coincidence. This same Afeka posted the same comment on Vodkapundit – on an unrelated thread – and started a little argument there.
Idiot
Got to give credit where it’s due : Krugman is a great contrary indicator. When he says things are going badly, you know we’re recovering. And when he finally admits that the economy is bouncing, as he did earlier this year, you know we’re due for a bit of a slowdown.
And during the Clinton years, especially the late 90s, it was all going to hell, of course. Clearly, how “esteemed” people are has very little to do with their actual record…
I’m sure any of you people would be happy to have the fame and fortune of Mr. Krugman. He became prominent because he is intelligent, and understands what is happening in the world. He writes for the New York Times which is the most respected newspaper in the world, and his book is a bestseller.
Jealousy doesn’t become you.
Motion to strike Akefa’s last comment. Do I hear a second?
I second that motion.
What is this, “New York Times”? You are making that up.
This is Akefa is a Rovian shill, swinging moderates away from the democrats by posing as one and acting like an idiot.
Akeefa, you keep saying that Krugman is great without giving details. You’ll need to support your assertions better if you want to convince anybody here. What arguments is Krugman right about and why is he right? Invoking the great man’s authority doesn’t cut it, because 1) doing so doesn’t address specific arguments, 2) Krugman, or anyone else, is entirely capable of being wrong on some issues even if he’s right about others, and 3) we could always find some great figure who supports positions contrary to Krugman’s. I suggest that you google the term “argumentative fallacies” and read up on why arguments that are based on appeals to authority are necessarily weak.
I’m not trying to blow you off here, it’s just that you keep citing Krugman’s authority, and the only people who will accept such arguments are those who already agree with Krugman. You might make more progress if you tried to explain why rather than merely cited authority.
Wasn’t her name spelled Akefa (one ‘e’) before? Makes me wonder…..
No, DO NOT STRIKE please! As long as he/she is not insulting, I have no problem with the comments. I think that the opinions expressed by Afeka, when contrasted with our refutations, do more to show how non-sensical his/her position is than anything I could offer on my own. Afeka believes that the NYT is a moderate, balanced source of journalism. Any rational reader who is honest with themself knows that this is not the case.
Sure. I think we should be tolerant as long as commenters are civil.
I think this fellow is playing with you guys.
Nobody could say those things and actually mean them. It must be a hoax.
He’s playing with us, we’re playing with him. I think we’re getting the better part of the deal. It’s so difficult to find good foils these days.
We like playing with trolls. And anyone who respects anyone unquestionably – especially Krugman – is definitely trolling.
DSpears, as the kid in ‘American Beauty’ said : never underestimate the power of denial. There are people who believe this. No joke. It’s sad. But hey, if someone can be willing, able and ready to give their lives for the likes of al-Sadr or Arafat, why is it so hard to believe there are dweebs to respect the likes of Krugman, or trust the New York Times just because everyone else they know says they should ?
“..There are people who believe this. No joke. It’s sad..”
Sylvain…you’ve hit upon a very important hypocracy among the extreme left. On the one hand they decry christians or other religious people for blind belief in something….all the while their politics are are indeed a belief system…not based on fact, rational or critical thought…but an entire belief system…
The point was really personified for me when I had a discussion last year with some drone about the war in Iraq. He was going on about how we are only there to steal the oil..you know, the usual fare….and how the US got a full 62% of all its oil from Iraq!! ..and wouldn’t Bush and his oil cronies just love to be getting that all for free instead.(remember..democrats have “inclusion”….republicans have “cronyism”)
After a small chuckle I asked him where he got his 62% figure from, to which he replied “everybody knows that..”. So I to told him about OPEC, how much came from gulf nations prior to war(I think I recall tabout 13% for ALL of gulf nations in OPEC) so how could the source from Iraq alone be ~ 5x what we got from gulf nations as a whole?
To this he replied..”Well, you believe what you want to believe, I’ll believe what I want to believe..”. This is the viewpoint you hinted at personified. They don’t WANT to deal in fact..they want to deal in what feels good to say..what fuels their “side”…nothing more…
Related to this They LIKE to feel outraged, they LIKE to feel like they are “raging against the machine” so to speak….this is why extreme liberalism is so popular among young people…young college age people often go throught that stage where they feel the need to rebel…they want THEIR Viet Nam and they will make any situation around them fit the bill as something to “fight”….The Iraq war, being that it is a war just happens to be a cliche target..
A distinguished liberal (pro Kerry) economist, that I truly cannot name, said to me apropos of a certain NYT column: “Ah, yes. Pity, I can remember when Krugman was a great economist.”
The only upside of a Kerry victory is that Krugman would stop foaming at the mouth and start writing real stuff again.