Krugman Smears Ron Paul (While Misrepresenting What Rep. Paul Is Saying)[/COLOR][/URL] [/B]
Posted by Bill Anderson on December 18, 2010 09:58 PM
Seven years ago, I wrote that Paul Krugman is ?not an economist,? and I stand by those words today. I also should add that Krugman is not even a good columnist, if ?good? here means getting his facts straight.
In a blog post today (Dec. 18), Krugman smears Ron Paul by creating a caricature of Rep. Paul?s statements, even while professing to admire his lack of ?hypocrisy.? He writes:
Furthermore, unlike Krugman, Rep. Paul understands that in order for the market to be a proper regulator, firms must be held accountable for losses. Would Wall Street firms have run over the cliff had they understood that no one was watching their backs? I doubt it seriously.
Instead, we have the self-smug Krugman claiming that Rep. Paul ? probably the only person in Congress who really understands economics ? is ?crazy? while Krugman continues to demonstrate his delusional belief that the government can spend this economy out of this depression. So, who is crazy here?
Posted by Bill Anderson on December 18, 2010 09:58 PM
Seven years ago, I wrote that Paul Krugman is ?not an economist,? and I stand by those words today. I also should add that Krugman is not even a good columnist, if ?good? here means getting his facts straight.
In a blog post today (Dec. 18), Krugman smears Ron Paul by creating a caricature of Rep. Paul?s statements, even while professing to admire his lack of ?hypocrisy.? He writes:
In a way, I almost welcome the frankness of someone like Ron Paul, who tells us that there?s no need for any kind of bank regulations. It?s crazy, of course ? even Adam Smith called for bank regulations, comparing them to building regulations designed to prevent the spread of fires. But at least the guy?s consistent.
Of course, Krugman is insinuating that Rep. Paul has no problem with the mess that Wall Street made and that there should be no oversight of any kind over the banking system. That clearly is NOT what Rep. Paul is saying. Here is what Rep. Paul told the Wall Street Journal:
?I don?t think we need regulators. We need law and order. We need people to fulfill their contracts.? He added: ?The market is a great regulator, and we?ve lost understanding and confidence that the market is probably a much stricter regulator.?
Of course, Rep. Paul understands the problems caused by the huge moral hazard created by the implicit guarantee that the government and the Federal Reserve System would bail out those politically-favored Wall Street firms; it also is clear that Krugman does not understand what is patently obvious.
Furthermore, unlike Krugman, Rep. Paul understands that in order for the market to be a proper regulator, firms must be held accountable for losses. Would Wall Street firms have run over the cliff had they understood that no one was watching their backs? I doubt it seriously.
Instead, we have the self-smug Krugman claiming that Rep. Paul ? probably the only person in Congress who really understands economics ? is ?crazy? while Krugman continues to demonstrate his delusional belief that the government can spend this economy out of this depression. So, who is crazy here?
