Skip to comments.Paul Krugman: Ignorant and Proud of it
Posted on 03/10/2011 6:32:18 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Or so he claims:
Some have asked if there arent conservative sites I read regularly. Well, no. I will read anything Ive been informed about thats either interesting or revealing; but I dont know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously. I know were supposed to pretend that both sides always have a point; but the truth is that most of the time they dont. The parties are not equally irresponsible; Rachel Maddow isnt Glenn Beck; and a conservative blog, almost by definition, is a blog written by someone who chooses not to notice that asymmetry. And life is short
That’s right, and George Will isn’t Michael Moore; and a liberal blog, almost by definition, is a blog written by someone who chooses not to notice that asymmetry. No need to read Marginal Revolution, Becker/Posner, Econlog, John Taylor, Greg Mankiw, Robin Hanson, Steven Landsburg, etc, etc. Nothing of interest, just move right along folks. I’m always amazed when someone so brilliant can be so clueless about life. How someone can reach middle age and still live in a kindergartener’s world of good guys and bad guys.
Perhaps if Krugman would get out a bit more he might make fewer embarrassing errors, like this one, where he forgot the fallacy of composition, something taught in EC101. I guess none of his liberal friends have the nerve to point out these sorts of silly errors. So it’s still there, uncorrected after two weeks. A monument to his pride at being ignorant of the views of those with whom he disagrees.
You might ask whether I’m being a bit harsh calling him “ignorant.” Actually, he’s the one who proudly flaunts his ignorance of conservative thought.
I find that reading good liberal blogs like Krugman, DeLong, Thoma, Yglesias, etc, sharpens my arguments. It forces me to reconsider things I took for granted. I’d guess that when Krugman tells people at cocktail parties that the post-1980 trend of lower tax rates, deregulation, and privatization was a plot devised by racist Republicans, they all nod their heads in agreement. If he occasionally read a conservative blog he might learn that all those trends occurred in almost every country throughout the world after 1980, usually much more so than in the US.
I wonder if his blanket condemnation of reading conservative outlets would include books that attack silly liberal arguments for protectionism. Or articles that show the folly of liberal opposition to sweatshops. Are those conservative ideas also no longer worth reading?
Some conservatives have given up on reading Krugman because of his insulting tone. That’s a big mistake—indeed it’s playing right into his hands. Krugman is right in many of his criticisms of conservative ideas (such as tighter money.) Conservatives need to hear his views. Better to read things that annoy you, and respond when you are outraged, than to be oblivious to the best arguments against your worldview. The best liberal bloggers are those who don’t stay in their echo chamber, but rather are willing to also read blogs that annoy them.
PS. I will be away for a few days, and hence won’t do much blogging.
Update: Many commenters failed to click on the link in Krugman’s post, so they didn’t realize that he cited Tyler Cowen as the sort of conservative who is so partisan that he ”doesn’t notice that asymmetry” and therefore is not worth reading. I don’t even consider Cowen to be a conservative (much less partisan), but Krugman obviously does.
Dishonest to the point of making Baghdad Bob look truthful.
He is certainly ignorant. I don’t know if he’s proud of it since he probably doesn’t realize it.
So, according to our estimable Mods, *this* is ‘News’, while tanking markets are only fit for “Bloggers and Personal”...
DOW OFF OVER 170, EVERYTHING GETTING CRUSHED
TBI ^ | 3-10-2011 | Joe Weisenthal
Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:48:30 AM by blam
Krugman = JournOlist
Krugman is an EINO. Economist In Name Only. He is really more of a Democrat political partisan who will shape his economic argument to fit whatever the Democrats are trying to achieve politically. I think he has lost all credibility assuming he had any in the first place.He won the Nobel Prize not necessarily because of his brilliance in the field but because the Eurosocialists awarding the prize are suckers for Keynesian economics. Krugman is a dishonest tool who has been chronically wrong about his predictions for the future.