Krugman watch

Krugman’s guilty of either wilful ignorance or deliberate disingenuousness, and his apparent view that Mahathir’s anti-semitism, a lifelong obsession, is due to George Bush should be considered evidence of mania. People like Krugman are dangerous, because they cannot see hatefilled dictators (Mahathir is no democrat) for what they are, and their opinions are taken seriously by influtential people who also should know better.

I agree Reynolds got the wrong end of the stick. But reading Krugman’s outrageously obtuse piece left me with a nasty taste.
When is enough enough?

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?

I’m amazed at the number of people who apparently have problems understanding the thrust of Krugman’s column.

I’m amazed at the number of people who apparently have problems understanding the thrust of Krugman’s column.

There should not be any problem with understanding them since they pretty much have the same theme – whatever the problem is, blame Bush.

I’ll write this very slowly so people can understand.

Krugman wasn’t blaming the guy’s anti-Semitism on George Bush, he was blaming george bush for a foreign policy which has created a situation in which Our Good Friend Mahathir, a buddy in our War On Terra, considers it more prudent to make anti-Semitic remarks for domestic consumption on the eve of a presidential visit than to not do so.

You may or may not agree with this assessment, but Krugman is just explaining that these are not the ravings of a lunatic, but of a crafty politician. A completely bigoted anti-semitic politician, perhaps, but nonetheless the comments were *calculated.*

data:

More precisely, Krugman’s spin on Mahathir’s diatribe makes it seem that Mahathir was somehow forced to pander to some anti-Semitic feeling amongst Malaysians or Muslims, when Mahathir has been anti-Semitic long before al-Qaeda was even formed.

Which not only places the “guilt” of “causing” anti-Semitism on Bush, but at the same time justifies it as a kind of “natural” reaction. Krugman on the one hand criticises the words Mahathir used:

Indeed, those remarks were inexcusable

At the same time, anti-Semitism is an OK measure to “ward off tensions” between Malaysia’s ethnic groups:

What became clear watching Mr. Mahathir back then was that his strident rhetoric was actually part of a delicate balancing act aimed at domestic politics. Malaysia has a Muslim, ethnically Malay, majority, but its business drive comes mainly from an ethnic Chinese minority. To keep the economy growing, Mr. Mahathir must allow the Chinese minority to prosper, but to ward off ethnic tensions he must throw favors, real and rhetorical, to the Malays

This is what must be harshly criticised; anti-Semitism is not an OK measure of politics, though of course it is a convenient one. And this is where Krugman must be criticised: he perceives anti-Semitism in Malaysia as an actually good measure of policy. The additional fact that Krugman implicitly attributes the rise of anti-Semitism as a result of “squandered sympathy” in the Muslim world to Bush is ahistoric and purely partisan. And, again, it eerily justifies this irrational hate as a reaction, which is ridiculous.

Atrios wrote:

I’ll write this very slowly so people can understand.

No, no. To get the full effect of that bit of sarcasm you have to s-p-e-l-l-o-u-t-e-a-c-h-w-o-r-d. ;)

Krugman wasn’t blaming the guy’s anti-Semitism on George Bush, he was blaming george bush for a foreign policy which has created a situation in which Our Good Friend Mahathir, a buddy in our War On Terra, considers it more prudent to make anti-Semitic remarks for domestic consumption on the eve of a presidential visit than to not do so.

Which is pretty much just restating what I wrote in my last post:

Mahathir was forced to insert hateful words into speech not because he is (a) a hateful anti-Semitic piece of or (b) that’s what he thought his supporters (who are hateful anti-Semitic pieces of ) wanted to hear but really because © it’s all Bush’s fault (as is everything in Paul Krugman’s little fantasy world).

And Krugman’s opinion that this, much like everything else Krugman does not like, is somehow the fault of Bush (or his policies) is utter nonsense. The whole “we squandered post-9/11 sympathy” line is utter nonsense. Fouad Ajami wrote a great peace for Foreign Policy (click on my name to go the link):

The introduction of the Pew report sets the tone for the entire study. The war in Iraq, it argues,”has widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans” and “further inflamed the Muslim world.” The implications are clear: The United States was better off before Bush’s “unilateralism.” The United States, in its hubris, summoned up this anti-Americanism. Those are the political usages of this new survey.

But these sentiments have long prevailed in Jordan, Egypt, and France. During the 1990s, no one said good things about the United States in Egypt. It was then that the Islamist children of Egypt took to the road, to Hamburg and Kandahar, to hatch a horrific conspiracy against the United States. And it was in the 1990s, during the fabled stock market run, when the prophets of globalization preached the triumph of the U.S. economic model over the protected versions of the market in places such as France, when anti-Americanism became the uncontested ideology of French public life. Americans were barbarous, a threat to French cuisine and their beloved language. U.S. pension funds were acquiring their assets and Wall Street speculators were raiding their savings. The United States incarcerated far too many people and executed too many criminals. All these views thrived during a decade when Americans are now told they were loved and uncontested on foreign shores.

Much has been made of the sympathy that the French expressed for the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks, as embodied by the famous editorial of Le Monde’s publisher Jean-Marie Colombani, “Nous Sommes Tous Américains” (“We are all Americans”). And much has been made of the speed with which the United States presumably squandered that sympathy in the months that followed. But even Colombani’s column, written on so searing a day, was not the unalloyed message of sympathy suggested by the title. Even on that very day, Colombani wrote of the United States reaping the whirlwind of its “cynicism”; he recycled the hackneyed charge that Osama bin Laden had been created and nurtured by U.S. intelligence agencies.

As the Godfather of Blogs says “read the whole thing.” The idea that we somehow “squandered sympathy” is utter nonsense and unless Krugman is more the fool than he is a demagogue, he knows it too. The people who hate the United States and/or engage in anti-American/anti-Western rhetoric pretty much were doing it before 9/11 (although it may have subsided temporarily somewhat in the first few days when Chirac and company were crying crocodile tears). Governments which cooperate with us or do not cooperate with us in the War on Terror aren’t going to do so because they felt “sympathy” or “anger” at the United States – they’re doing it or not because they think it is in their own self-interest. Likewise with Mahathir, Shroeder, Anan, Chirac, and all of the other disagreeable dirt balls we have to work with to deal with a larger and more immediate threat. They may hem and haw about the strawman of “American unilateralism” but at the end of the day, their cooperation or lack of it is driven solely by what they think is in their own self-interest.

I would point out that it is possible to believe both (1) that the administration’s policy vis-a-vis the Middle East has been, on balance, the best practicable policy, and (2) that at the same time, that policy has had the unfortunate consequence of inflaming anti-American feeling in Muslim countries. While Krugman has criticized the administration’s foreign policy more generally in the past, I’m sure he would agree that the single asserted consequence of that policy discussed in his column, standing alone, does not invalidate the administration’s approach.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.