Comments on: Krugman watch

By: apirinG

apirinG — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:01:16 +0000

The fact that there were public calls for non-Muslim bashing after September 11th, and, at least among the public, they were generally upheld, should speak to Krugman’s correctness on this issue. How on earth did this become about anti-Semitism? Why is Anti-Semitism ok now? I mean, yeah, Israel has basically gone nuts and turned the American left against it, that helps, but shouldn’t Matahir be more interested in raising Muslims from THEIR negative stereotypes then throwing around others? In a lot of ways, he’s really advocating emulation of the Jews, not extermination. He does use the language of “we must beat them” and all that, but he brings them up as a role model, the same way America talked about Japanese business in the 80’s. Thing is- where’s Japan now?! Jews worldwide should be worried about this undercurrent- what Sharon or Wolfowitz and Perle do is not their decision, but people will use it against them. This is big big trouble.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:59:36 +0000

My primary cause for concern is that so much attention was put at blasting Mahathir and Krugman for their antisemitism without one mention of General Boykin and his “my god is bigger than yours comments”. That’s because Mahatir is an important policitian who has some influence on world events, and Krugman an informed commentator whose opinions are taken seriously, whilst Boykin is an anonymous twat with a mickey-mouse job. Nobody cares what Boykin says because he’s totally irrelevant – in comparrison, and independently, Mahatir and Krugman matter (well, Krugman does at least).

By: Hari

Hari — Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:23:51 +0000

I have a few general comments having read everyone’s inputs. My primary cause for concern is that so much attention was put at blasting Mahathir and Krugman for their antisemitism without one mention of General Boykin and his “my god is bigger than yours comments”. My point in bringing this up is not to berate Boykin for publicizing his ignorance, but rather that racial, antisemite, bigot, enter your choice of word here, sentiments exist everywhere and should all be be considered deplorable. However, just as the thrust of Mahathir’s speech was lost because of his ignorant comments (btw, check out the blog on theories of why the Jewish ethnicity/religion has been able to produce so many prominent intellectuals), the thrust of Krugman’s editorial was lost because of his biased views on our current administration and apparent charges of anti-semitism. What is important and should be primarily noted from the Malaysian leader’s speech is that he is blasting the Muslim world for failing to advance as a civilization. Further, he is blasting clerics and tellling them that it is ludicrous to think that development, industrialization, and progressive thought are not “western” ideals, but perfectly compatible with Islamic ideals. I think the main point of Krugman’s column (while decorated in anti-Bush rhetoric) was that all attention should not be placed on Mahathir the Bad Guy, but rather the challenge he was posing to fellow Muslim nations and the example Malaysia has set as the most developed Muslim nation in the world. Mahathir may be a despicable human being, but he has embraced a pseudo affirmative action program to promote the wealth and education of the native Malays (to which he identifies with despite having an Indian father); he correctly, and opposed to most economists, placed K controls on outflows of capital from Malaysia in the wake of the crisis and allowed Malaysia to escape massive crisis in 97. Relative comparison is what is important here and when compared to other Muslim developing nations, in particular, those where ethnic and religious strife is rampant and where a VERY small foreign minority has MOST of the wealth, Malaysia has done fairly well despite having an authoritarian bigot as a ruler. Some credit must be given for that and not all the focus should be on his personal views. In the same vein, Boykin is some sort of archconservative Christian asshole, but we do not hear rulers around the world reprimanding Bush or the Pentagon for those comments. On a final note to the Krugman bashing, Krugman is a BRILLIANT economist, and while he might be too large for his own shoes nowadays, read his economics work and he is right on. He correctly pointed out that the ASEAN Tigers’ “miracle growth” was mostly due to the increase in factor accumulation and not superior TFP growth (though it varies across the East Asian nations). Perhaps he should use his Times columns to focus more on his expertise and not sweeping foreign policy arguments, but all his critics out there owe him more respect than calling him a “fucktard, idiotarian, and an asshat”.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:24:31 +0000

Thorley: Krugman is not merely a moonbat, but also a fucktard, idiotarian, and an asshat. You’re really too easy on the guy. But at least the grievance-collectors at the ADL had a chance to be right for once, after embarrassing themselves so terribly when they went after that wonderful Christian gentleman Kirk Gibson.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:17:36 +0000

Which goes the farthest off the edge, Limbaugh or Krugman? An interesting question. I can’t think of anything that Limbaugh said about Clinton that matches Krugman’s comparison of Bush to the mad Roman emperor Caligula, but Limbaugh has certainly gone beyond fair comment on other subjects. On the other hand, Limbaugh presents himself as an entertainer and a satirist, and Krugman poses as a serious thinker. I have to say this latest Krugman column makes me think that my joking suggestion, that the Krugman columns were written by a graduate student trying to destroy Krugman’s reputation, may have to be taken seriously.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:06:49 +0000

Let us suppose that back in the good old days, a prominent Soviet leader had begun his speech by denouncing the threat of “Western capitalist-imperialist revanchist anti-proletarian forces” and then proceeded to launch a systematic criticism “in our sphere of fraternal socialist solidarity” of poor productive performance and the deficiency in the educational system of tying academic promotion to ideological correctness. Would the Kremlinologists all conclude that the Soviet leader had advocated renewed and intensified confrontation with the West? Yes, Mahathir is an authoritarian and a bigot; this is not news. Nor should it be news that the world at large has a density and texture of its own and is not always tractable to our preferred categories and standards of judgment. Poor old dumb Paul Krugman stuck his foot into the deep doo-doo on this one, since, having some actual experience in dealings with Malaysia as an economist, he thought he could communicate something of the benefit of his experience in 750 words or less. (Yes, strictly speaking, foreign policy, as opposed to international economics, is not his forte; but would you rather rely on the sycophantic commentary of, e.g., Jim Hoagland who supposedly specializes in the foreign policy beat?) But the Bushies have much bigger feet and have stuck them into much deeper doo-doo.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:50:33 +0000

A number of people have said that Krugman is wrong to suggest that Bush is somehow ultimately responsible for the content of the speech (for making Malaysia a close ally, and forcing its leaders to make nice things towards religious extremists in the country), because the Malay PM has been making anti-Semitic speeches for years. So… Bush has been building an alliance with a well-known anti-Semite? And it’s Krugamn everyone is having a pop at? Jeez.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:28:43 +0000

ratherworried, what ‘mistake’? Limbaugh (I assume you mean) rarely makes a point as subtle as Prof. Krugman’s and here he did not mention Bush so what’s your point? In any case I can see nothing wrong with Michael Moore getting himself an economics degree (or two).

By: Ratherworried

Ratherworried — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:33:21 +0000

Not that it should excuse him but Dr. Paul Krugman is an economist not a foreign policy expert. Lately he appears to believe that the world is coming to an end (not the first time he has predicted that either). If I were his friend I’d arrange an intervention for him. The more articles he writes the less and less coherant his opinions become. He exhibits Bush hatred the same way Lindbaugh exhibits Clinton hatred. Read his book. If you still think he is an objective source of opinion and not Michael Moore with an economics degree you have past the point where you can be saved. He belongs in the same category as Moore, Coulter and Limbaugh. He writes entertainment not substance. Just like Moore. His latest ‘mistake’ is very typical of his columns. I’m surprised that anyone is surprised. If you are reading Krugman for substance you have issues.

By: flutier

flutier — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:43:23 +0000

I have just read Fouad Ajami’s piece in Foreign Policy recommended in a previous post. He describes the content of a book I happen to have read (by J.M. Colombani), but sometimes I wonder if we have read the same book. Ajami is obviously prepared to distort the facts a lot in order to prove its case.

By: churchill

churchill — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:06:08 +0000

ADL is a joke. Recently they gave some award to italian PM (berolusci or something). A few weeks before the award this guy apparently had said some nice things about mussolini. Can somebody explain why we should take ADL seriously?

By: roger

roger — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:42:17 +0000

Actually, Krugman points out that Mahathir has played the anti-semitic card before. The weird thing about the wavering attention paid to Malaysia because of that remark is that no attention, really, is paid to Malaysia’s place in the conditions that lead up to Al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11. In all the attention that was paid to whether there was even one link that connected Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden, nobody was asking: why did Al Qaeda move East, rather than West, after 2000? The planning of the hijacking derived from a meeting in Malaysia. We know that the prototype for the operation was created in the Phillippines. Unfortunately, because the war on Iraq has been mislabeled a War on Terrorism, it obscures what should be clear—there is a considerable network of sympathizers in Malaysia,Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Phillipines who helped make the first attack possible, and will probably make the second attack—when it comes—possible, too. Oddly enough, I think the problem with Krugman’s column is that he unconsciously accedes to the Bush claim that shifts the “War on Terror” to the West – to Iraq. It should be clear by now: the war on Iraq is a separate war. The success of Bush’s rhetoric is in inverse relation to the reality it describes. Thus the comments about squandering post 9/11 sympathy—really, more than sympathy was needed. Real pressure to root out Al Q. sympathizers was needed. Will it happen after another attack? Not given the current level of incompetency in power in the U.S.

By: marc

marc — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:35:53 +0000

Henry, I don’t know if you have seen it, but Reynolds has since corrected his statement to the ADL is “blasting Paul Krugman for being soft on anti-Semitism” which is a more fair description of the ADL letter. Reynolds posts litterally thousand of words a day with no editor, I don’t think it’s asking too much to judge him on his corrected statements. As for Krugman, I think that raj correctly shows that he does have make an arguement to connect Bush (or “Washington”) to Mahathir’s speach. However I think it is very weak. Mahathir has been making anti-Semitic remarks for years, the Islamic leaders’ meeting has been full of anti-Semitism for years. The anti-Semitism in his recent speach is quite easily explained as perfectly expected (I certainly wan’t surprised.) No change, and thus no need to identify any recent causes for change. Without this paragraph, Krugman would have had an interesting, insightful, and well reasoned column, albeit with little domestic policital implications. Instead, he has a weak attack on the current administration. The choice was his (and his editors’) and I think it is telling.

By: Yuval Rubinstein

Yuval Rubinstein — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:04:27 +0000

Am I right in thinking that, as I’ve now been able to read the InstaLibel here in the UK, Krugman can pick Peter Carter-Ruck and Co to bring a lucrative action in the English courts?
Funny you should mention that, Chris. The landmark case of Gutnick v. Dow Jones, in which an Australian businessman was allowed to sue the Wall Street Journal in an Australian Court for an article written on the Barron's Online website, is about to go to trial. Also, check out the case of Harrods v. Dow Jones for more supporting precedent. I hope Prof. Instalibel knows some good English defence lawyers (personally, I would recommend Geoffrey Robertson, but he's probably busy at the moment).

By: Ross Judson

Ross Judson — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:33:39 +0000

Donald Luskin’s criticism of Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman has always struck me as plain old insult-based attacking. Luskin seems like a musician who, too cool for words, says that he could produce a hit record whenever he wants, but he has serious things to do. Or maybe he really can’t. If Luskin is a primary critic of Krugman, I wouldn’t mind seeing an edited, fact-based debate between the two of them. Or such a debate between Krugman and any other economist supporting Bush policies, for that matter. Let’s see the numbers and the reasoning. Somehow I don’t think we’ll see such a debate. I offer this insight into Luskin’s thinking, from an exchange I had with a while back: ————————————-——-Original Message——- From: Judson, Ross Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 9:32 AM To: Donald Luskin Subject: numbers, numbers You might want to subtract this particular one from your argument. With everyone on every side paraphrasing like crazy, and then calling the paraphrases lies, we all need to be very careful. K: The Bushies are different. They just plain lie. They just plain say, “Here’s our tax cut; it goes mostly to the working class.” And then you actually take a look at the numbers and it’s not subjective. You just say, “Oh, 42 percent of it goes to the top 1 percent of the population.” KTS: Let’s just accept that 42% figure, whether or not it’s right. What’s important is that Krugman is lying when he claims that the Bush administration ever said anything to indicate that its tax cuts would go “mostly to the working class.” Yes, the administration said that “every American who pays income taxes will get tax relief.” Yes, the administration said that “the percentage reduction in income taxes is greatest for families with incomes under $50,000,” and therefore higher-income taxpayers “will pay a larger share of the total income tax burden.” And those statements are absolutely factual – as Krugman would say, “it’s not subjective.” Bottom line is, the Administration stated that “92 million taxpayers will get an average tax cut of $1003”. While mathematically true, you and I both know that is absolutely intended to convey that it will go mostly to the working class. Yes, people have to be smart enough to know the difference between a median and an average. Most people aren’t. Most people are going to hear that and think their taxes are going to be $1000 lower. You also disparage the 42% figure. Come up with a better one and source it. You’ll find plenty of open-minded middle-grounders out there like me. Show up with the good stuff, and you’ll convince us. If your entire column can be condensed to “he lies, and lies again” without anything backing it up….well, you’ll find yourself with a loyal, diminishing constituency of yes-men. RJ Donald Luskin’s reply: I guess we just differ in our assessment of that particular example. If you think those statement by Bush are “just plain lies” then I don’t know what I can do to convince you otherwise. -=-=-=-=- Donald L. Luskin Chief Investment Officer Trend Macrolytics