re: Trump is tweeting about "lightweight thinker" Paul Krugman

quote:

---

I read an article last year that said it's not really a Nobel prize. He won an award with the name Nobel that was not affiliated with the real Nobel prize. IDK, but I've been reading Krugman's predictions for decades and he's always wrong.

---

Maybe you question where you read it from then. It’s not Nobel in the sense that Alfred Nobel established it, but it is a Nobel prize

LINK

Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics), the sole recipient for 2008. This prize includes an award of about $1.4 million and was given to Krugman for his work associated with New Trade Theory and the New Economic Geography.[83] In the words of the prize committee, "By having integrated economies of scale into explicit general equilibrium models, Paul Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity."[84]

LINK

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics,[2] is an award for outstanding contributions to the field of economics,[3] and generally regarded as the most prestigious award for that field. The award's official name is The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne).[4][5][6]

The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden's central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank's 300th anniversary.[3][7][8][9] As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not technically a Nobel Prize.[10] However, it is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation.[11] Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony.[3]

quote:

---

Donald freakin’ Trump calling Paul Krugman an intellectual lightweight. Sweet Baby Jesus.

---

Oh, you're one of those Filth that wants the economy to crash so it looks bad on Trump?

Figured you were.

quote:

---

The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden's central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank's 300th anniversary.[3][7][8][9] As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not technically a Nobel Prize.[10] However, it is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation.[11] Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony.[3]

---

Thanks. That's what I read.

I've always been skeptical about this stuff because Robt Reich was labeled by the media as an economics prof for a year before someone explained he never was. He lectured in the law school.

quote:

---

Oops....someone put child porn on my computer Krugman.

---

It's not so much that Krugman got child porn on his computer, it's that he was stupid enough to tell the whole world about it.

quote:

---

Krugman is literally wrong about everything

---

Nope. That’s not true. He’s right about everything, too, because he’s taken both sides of almost every issue.

quote:

---

So which Krugman are we supposed to believe?

[] Krugman 2003 [deficit at 3% of GDP, 10-year deficit projection $1.8 trillion]: "I'm terrified ... we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high ... the conclusion is inescapable ... the task is simply impossible ... the fiscal train wreck, is already under way." Or,

[] Krugman 2009 [deficit at 11% of GDP, 10-year deficit projection $9 trillion]: What's to worry? The Ozzie & Harriet era of government finance will be easy enough to bring back. Just stabilize the debt in terms of GDP and be happy!

---

LINK

quote:

---

The numbers? The deficit in fiscal year 2004 -- $413 billion, 3.5 percent of the gross domestic product.

Back then, a disapproving Krugman called the deficit "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. ... The only time postwar that the United States has had anything like these deficits is the middle Reagan years, and that was with unemployment close to 10 percent." Take away the Social Security surplus spent by the government, he said, and "we're running at a deficit of more than 6 percent of GDP, and that is unprecedented."

...Fast-forward to 2010.

The numbers: projected deficit for fiscal year 2010 -- over $1.5 trillion, more than 10 percent of GDP.

This sets a post-WWII record in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of GDP. And if the Obama administration's optimistic projections of the economic growth fall short, things will get much worse. So what does Krugman say now?

We must guard against "deficit hysteria." In "Fiscal Scare Tactics," his recent column, Krugman writes: "These days it's hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we're told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren't stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they're reported as if they were facts, plain and simple."

He continues, "And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction." Krugman believes Bush lied us into the Iraq War. Just as people unreasonably feared Saddam Hussein, they now have an unwarranted fear of today's deficit.

Questions: Didn't Krugman, less than six years ago, call the deficit "enormous"? Wouldn't he, therefore, consider a $1.5 trillion deficit at 10 percent of GDP mega-normous? Didn't he describe the economy with 5.5 percent unemployment as "weak"? Isn't the current economy, at 9.7 percent unemployment, even weaker? If the 2004 deficit was "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country," wouldn't today's much bigger deficit cause even more heartburn?

Nope. Now a huge deficit is actually a good thing: "The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs." The deficit "should be bigger"?!

---

You can find other egregious flip flops on minimum wages, and others with like 30 seconds with your favorite search engine.

No surprise LiberalHank loves him so much.

quote:

---

Donald freakin’ Trump calling Paul Krugman an intellectual lightweight

---

I don't get your complaint. It's hundred percent Dead on. Krugman by his own admission let his emotion cause him to predict stupidity right after Trump got elected

Whatever he used to be he has completely abandoned for at least 20 years. Now he's just an emotional wreck who makes decisions based on the fact he's an emotional wreck

quote:

---

GWB Is Smarter Than You

---

Good article. The same thing happened to Dan Quayle

There was a great story that came out of Brazil during a conference of Nations down there. Brazilian leader during an interview admitted that he was stunned to discover that Dan Quayle had the best command of the economic issues affecting the nation's of South America of anybody present at the meetings. He had assumed just like most Americans that Quale was a lightweight and would be unprepared.

The press has done this to basically every prominent Republican of my lifetime. That liberals still buy it is frankly proof of how stupid they are

Right. Krugman obviously isn’t dumb, he’s just an emotional hack. Any “unbiased” economist who had a reaction like he did in Nov 2016 should never be taken seriously again.