Free Republic

In July 2008 Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) "didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income." (New York Times, July 18, 2008) Earlier this month he compounded his error when he stated: "Zombies, zombies, everywhere. One of the enduring myths of the financial crisis has been the claim that it was the result of...

The lies exposed.

In a world full of paradoxes, Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has become rich decrying what he deems "income inequality." Only in America could an individual denounce the wealth gap while becoming the very person he denounces. In that sense, it may be that polar opposites Karl Marx and Joseph Schumpeter were right: capitalism is seemingly its own worst enemy. In rich societies, commentators can become wealthy while trashing wealth creation. The irony with Krugman is that when it comes to policy prescriptions meant to elevate the living standards of the lower and middle classes,...

The biggest question about the new Schumer-Carper health-care plan on Capitol Hill is the one nobody's asking. Why stop there? In case you missed it, Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, and Tom Carper, D.-Delaware, are considering a proposal that may, at long last, break the logjam over health-care reform. They would create a public health insurer, the so-called "public option," but allow individual states to opt out if they wanted. In other words: the blue states can have public health insurance, and the red states can go without. You may wonder why it took so long to get here. If...

Some of these I haven't yet seen, and I've seen a lot of these clips. Words from: Russ Feingold Kathleen Sebelius Paul Krugman Barney Frank Ezra Klein Rahm Emanuel and Jan Schakowsky

The American dream is not totally dead, but it’s being pretty, it’s dying pretty fast...Horatio Alger would move to Europe these days." So said New York Times columnist Paul Krugman Friday. Appearing with disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Krugman demonstrated perfectly why his perpertually pessimistic view of America is so revered by perpetually pessimistic liberals (partial transcript below the fold): PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: On bad mornings I wake up and think that we are turning into a Latin American country. I mean, and there's some of that there. But...

So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents? If so, you’ll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change. The House has already passed a fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill, the Waxman-Markey act, which if it becomes law would eventually lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But on climate change, as on health care, the sticking point will be the Senate. And the usual suspects are doing their best to prevent action. Some of them still claim...

So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, that’s a terrifying number, requiring drastic action — in particular, of course, canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform. The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it’s not catastrophic. The only real reason for concern is political. The United States can deal with its...

Medical Care: We took a lot of heat for using Stephen Hawking as an example of someone who'd suffer under a socialized health system. But a closer look at the treatment he got in the U.K. shows it wasn't all roses.As our Aug. 1 editorial put it: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Now, Hawking is British and — though he suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as "Lou...

"The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity. Opponents of the option — not just Republicans, but Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Ben Nelson — have offered no coherent arguments against it. Mr. Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance — which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer." Evidently, for Krugman, his own argument circa 2007 that it might lead inexorably...

Here is far-Left New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman in October 2007 describing how the "Public Option" in proposed Democratic Health Care Plans would be a "root" that would lead to Government-Run Universal Health Care, a "root" that would eventually "kill private insurance." If you are looking for a "smoking gun" to prove that Democrats intend to use their so-called "Public Option" as deceptive way to bring about Socialized Medicine across the board, this is it. . . . . (Watch Video)

Recently in the New York Times, mystery writer Sara Paretsky published “Le Treatment,” the story of how she took her husband, suffering from chest pains during their vacation in France, to a local hospital, where he was treated without delay. A cardiologist correctly diagnosed the problem, pneumonia, and administered the necessary medication. The hospital charged no money up front, though the doctor apologetically said that he would have to bill the couple, as they were not citizens. Six months later, an invoice arrived for $220. Paretsky expresses one minor reservation about what she sees as a nearly perfect health-care system:...

There has been quite a lot of commentary on my colleague Ross Douthat’s use of a Texas-California comparison (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/opinion/03douthat.html) to claim that red states are doing better in the crisis than blue states. Some have pointed out that California, despite its liberal reputation, doesn’t have especially high taxes (http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/06stl_pi.html); others have pointed out that Texas, where almost a quarter of the population lacks health insurance (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/p60no235_table8.pdf), is hardly a model. What I haven’t seen pointed out, however, is that Texas is not the only red state. Why not look at South Carolina, where taxes are almost as low as they...

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want. But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense. To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.) Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition. By...

Every time I read a Paul Krugman column I stop and wonder: what would America look like if this man were in charge of the country? We know from his most recent writings that Krugman would have nationalized the entire banking system, that he would have enacted a significantly larger stimulus package than the $787 billion that passed, that he would move America to a single payer health care system, and that he'd enact much tougher environmental policy to deal with global warming.

Paul Krugman may have won a nobel prize for economics but when it comes to politics, his writings aren't even worthy of a booby prize. Yesterday, The New York Times columnist had this to say about opponents of the climate change bill: "So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as...

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.... The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid...

Remember when Democrats screamed that they weren't going to stand to be called unpatriotic just because they dissented from then President Bush's policies. Here is John Kerry on the subject. I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

Remember the good old days—when dissent was patriotic? Fuggedaboutit. Dissent isn't merely unpatriotic now. It's downright treasonous. Just ask Paul Krugman. If, like virtually all House Republicans and a handful of Dems, you don't agree with the likes of Henry Waxman on the need to take radical measures on the climate, you're guilty of . . . "a form of treason." Treason against the planet, to be precise. That was Krugman's formulation in his New York Times column of today, Betraying The Planet. Krugman has obviously drunk deep from the carafe of Al Gore Kool-Aid, writing:

June 18, 2009, 0:00 a.m. How to Crush DebateStart with a lie, add a little slander, stir with incitement to violence. By Clifford D. May Following the deadly shootings of a Kansas abortion doctor and a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, two prominent New York Times columnists, Paul Krugman and Frank Rich, spoke out forcefully against those in the media who spout lies and, possibly, incite violence. There are “lunatics� out there, Krugman wrote, and “media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.� Rich warned of “toxic rhetoric� and “media demagogues,� fueling a rage...

Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment. Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last...

... [L]ong-term rates have risen by 167 basis points in the space of five months. In relative terms, that represents an 81 per cent jump. Most commentators were unnerved by this development, coinciding as it did with warnings about the fiscal health of the US. For me, however, it was good news. For it settled a rather public argument between me and the Princeton economist Paul Krugman. It is a brave or foolhardy man who picks a fight with Mr Krugman, the most recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics. Yet a cat may look at a king, and...

British Econ-god Niall Ferguson goes after US econ-god Paul Krugman, who made the mistake of being condescending to him on a panel last week. The fate of the world hangs in the balance. From the FT: On Wednesday last week, yields on 10-year US Treasuries – generally seen as the benchmark for long-term interest rates – rose above 3.73 per cent. Once upon a time that would have been considered rather low. But the financial crisis has changed all that: at the end of last year, the yield on the 10-year fell to 2.06 per cent. In other words, long-term...

[Liberal econonomists now assume] that a huge fiscal stimulus, created out of the illusory elements of massive public borrowing and boundless money creation, will provide the ladder that allows us to climb out of today’s economic crisis. To listen to some prominent liberal economists who believe in Keynesian-style “demand management,” the only thing wrong with this confabulated ladder is that it should be even taller. And truly, if money is no object, why not build it right up to the sky? Why stop where we are now—with a federal deficit expected to reach 13.5 percent of GDP under the current...

Paul Krugman continues his one man assault on the legacy of Ronald Reagan with a column today that essentially blames the entire financial meltdown on one obscure law passed during the Reagan era, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. This is an act that essentially deregulated S&L's and was one factor in their eventual demise in the late 1980's. Now, Krugman purports to blame this very same act on the current crisis. Now, I was very skeptical of Conservatives blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the crisis. It's very rare that an obscure law actually creates this much...

Writing for the New York Times—“The Big Inflation Scare”—op-ed columnist Paul Krugman states that “when it comes to inflation, the only thing we have to fear is inflation fear itself.” His claim, highly controversial—and dubious—comes in the face of America’s largest in world history budget ($3.6 trillion), deficit ($1.8 trillion), debt (nearly $11.4 trillion) and monetary expansion (the Fed’s balance sheet expanding from $800 billion to over $2 trillion since September). It also comes as an ever-growing number of lawmakers, 179 and counting, on Capitol Hill are supporting a truly revolutionary bill (H.R. 1207), calling for an outright audit of...

I want to show up before Krugman's speech with some good talking points and sign suggestions. He is speaking at a high school this Friday so I need to keep it clean!

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman will give a free presentation, “Return of Depression Economics,” at Lincoln North Star High School at 7 p.m. May 8. “The Lincoln Public Schools District is indeed fortunate – especially in this era of economic downturn – to host the current, reigning Nobel Prize winner in economics,” said Randy Ernst, social studies curriculum specialist at LPS. Krugman is an economist, columnist, author and professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. [+]Enlarge Story Photo Paul Krugman, Nobel Prizewinning economist (AP Photo/Mel Evans) Story Photo Paul Krugman, Nobel Prizewinning economist (AP Photo/Mel Evans) He was...

Here is the socialist view of the tea parties remember it's just not about taxation it's about the wreckless, socialist, liberty grabbing,spending of the obama adm.

Ever since I have done some investigative reporting on ACORN, I have become much more familiar with Alinsky's Rule #13 for radicals. Here is the rule. identify, isolate, freeze and escalate. Variations of this can be found everywhere. For instance, Rush correctly pointed out that the manufactured feud that the president created against him was straight out of this handbook. The goal of the Obama administration was to marginalize Rush, isolate him, and then make him the face of the Republican party and thus do the same to the party at large.

“[The American people] have been sold a bill of goods. This legislation will not accomplish anything that the people are being promised.“ — Rush Limbaugh, show of February 13, 2009 [Pres. Obama's bank rescue plan] fills me with a sense of despair . . . [T]he real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. — Paul Krugman, NY Times column, March 23, 2009 [emphasis added] Next time Rush Limbaugh takes some time off, perhaps he should consider inviting Paul Krugman to fill in at the Golden EIB Microphone. Judging by his recent columns, it looks like the Nobel...

ince the beginning of the economic crisis Paul Krugman has been the loudest advocate for a down-the-line, damn-the-torpedoes Keynesian approach. He continues to press this point in his latest op-ed column at the New York Times. Krugman knows his economics (and if you forget about that, his Nobel Memorial Prize will remind you). He’s been writing cogently and presciently since nearly the beginning of the financial crisis (which long predates the economic one) about the clear and present danger of falling into a deflationary spiral.

Don’t get too carried away with the headline. In reality, he doesn’t like either “stimulus” plan. He just likes Obama’s plan less than the Republican plan. “Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach,” Paul Krugman concluded a recent article. “Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.” Krugman’s faint praise is like saying, “Your second ugliest sister is prettier than your ugliest sister.” But he doesn’t really want to kiss either of them.

It is unclear where President Barack Obama will lead the United States of America – besides $825 billion or so deeper in debt if he approves the House Democrats’ stimulus package. But what is clear is the direction liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wants Obama to take: toward an FDR expansion of government. Within days of Obama’s electoral victory Krugman wrote a column titled: “Franklin Delano Obama." Although he has no official advisory role, Krugman himself has said he will be influential in shaping policy. In a Dec. 6 interview, Krugman said “I probably can have as much...

lthough many free-market economists were aghast that Paul Krugman won the Nobel (Memorial) Prize in Economics, I have come to realize that he is every bit as brilliant as that august award indicates. For some time now, Krugman has said we are in "depression economics" mode, where the normal rules of scarcity and tradeoffs don't apply. In this universe, it makes sense to have one group of workers dig holes, and another group fill them back up. Sure, when all is said and done, there is nothing tangible to show for this effort, but at least it "creates jobs." So...

Paul Krugman of the New York Times has been on the attack lately in regard to the New Deal. His new book "The Return of Depression Economics," emphasizes the importance of New Deal-style spending. He has said the trouble with the New Deal was that it didn't spend enough. He's also arguing that some writers and economists have been misrepresenting the 1930s to make the effect of FDR's overall policy look worse than it was. I'm interested in part because Mr. Krugman has mentioned me by name. He recently said that I am the one "whose misleading statistics have been...

Paul Krugman responds to both THE FORGOTTEN MAN and a Bloomberg column that I wrote recently. He’s contesting the smallest of details in a very general picture of the period — TFM is a panorama book, not a data book. Nonetheless, in the spirit of debate, it seems worthwhile to address his questions: Dr Krugman’s first point is that TFM offers misleading statistics when it comes to unemployment. He actually uses the adjective “misleading.” There are a number of data sets seeking to capture joblessness in that period. (Remember, they didn’t have all the tools we have today.) The annual...

Paul Krugman has been making the rounds of the network morning shows, urging the government to "go big" in spending to revive the economy. His only concern is that Obama might not be planning to spend enough. Heck, as he explained to Kate Snow at GMA, even FDR wasn't a big enough spender in his book. View a clip of Krugman's weekend GMA appearance here, the episode in which, as discussed here, Krugman of all people had to talk Kate Snow down from her fantasy of Obama "forcing" the Bush administration to adopt his policies. None of the network shows...

In an MSM eager for the dawn of the Age of Obama, Kate Snow may have taken the cake. The weekend GMA co-host almost sounded as if she were calling for some kind of coup d'etat, musing whether Obama should do something to "force" change before he officially takes office. How over the top was Snow? She had to be talked down from her fin de regime fantasy but none other than . . . Paul Krugman. ABC reporter John Hendren set the tone for the notion that time is dangerously a-wasting. JOHN HENDREN: As with Hoover and FDR, the...

We are already, however, well into the realm of what I call depression economics. By that I mean a state of affairs like that of the 1930s in which the usual tools of economic policy — above all, the Federal Reserve’s ability to pump up the economy by cutting interest rates — have lost all traction. When depression economics prevails, the usual rules of economic policy no longer apply: virtue becomes vice, caution is risky and prudence is folly. ... Today [...] the effective federal funds rate (as opposed to the official target, which for technical reasons has become meaningless)...

The Nobel hasn't conferred any classiness on Paul Krugman. Dancing on the GOP's grave this morning in his NYT column, the newly-minted laureate impugns the party of Lincoln as "a haven for racists and reactionaries." According to Krugman [file photo], tomorrow's election will purge the Republican congressional delegation of some of its more moderate members, leaving it even more "extreme." The only evidence Krugman adduces in support of his Republican-are-racists slur is that GOP Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia "observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that 'the other folks are voting.'” Where's the racism, given that 90+%...

I'm guessing that Paul Krugman and David Brooks don't hang out that much together. So when both turn up on the New York Times op-ed page this morning with columns calling for massive government spending, I'm assuming they came to their conclusions independently. My working hypothesis: if Krugman and Brooks agree on something this important, they must be wrong. Here's Krugman's prescription, which comes in response to news that consumer spending has dropped sharply [emphasis added throughout]: [W]hat the economy needs now is something to take the place of retrenching consumers. That means a major fiscal stimulus. And this time...

Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize this week and that tells you all you have to know about how politicized the award has become. American writers no longer win prizes for literature because they are "no longer mainstream," but Paul Krugman -- well, he hates the Bush Administration! He's one of us. There's more to Krugman's fame, though, than just pandering to European aristocrats. In one of the shallowest intellectual gambits of recent decades, Krugman has been the point man for the bizarre thesis that America has become the "land of inequality." For the last five years Krugman has used...

The Nobel committee can stop looking for next year's prize-winner in economics and hand the thing right now to Harold Myerson. The WaPo columnist's effort of today, Gods That Failed, is Krugmanesque, reading like an extended gloat at the expense of believers in free markets. Ha-ha, mocks Myerson, your god of unregulated capitalism is dead. Just like Communism failed, so has your system. You half-expect Myerson to end with a self-satisfied "nah nah nah nah nah!" From Myerson's opening paras [emphasis added]: In 1949, a number of famous writers, among them Arthur Koestler, André Gide, Richard Wright, Stephen Spender and...

<p>The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences cited Krugman "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity."...</p> <p>"..Prior to 2008 the Nobel Prize had never been awarded posthumously. So great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the coveted award. But all that has changed. This year, the prize for economics is going to Paul Krugman, an economist who died a decade ago.</p>

STOCKHOLM, Oct 13, 2008 (AFP) - US economist Paul Krugman, a fierce critic of George W. Bush's handling of the global financial crisis, on Monday won the Nobel Economics Prize.

Columnist Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, won the Nobel prize in economics Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity. Krugman has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in The New York Times, where he writes a regular column and has a blog called "Conscience of a Liberal." He has come out forcefully against John McCain during the economic meltdown, saying the Republican candidate is "more frightening now...

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, won the Nobel economic prize Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity. Krugman has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in The New York Times, where he writes a regular column and has a blog called "Conscience of a Liberal." He has come out forcefully against John McCain during the economic meltdown, saying the Republican candidate is "more frightening now than he was a few weeks ago" and...

Paul Krugman is over in Berlin, and—surprise!—concludes that Europeans have things better figured out than we benighted Americans do. The gist of his Stranded in Suburbia in today's NY Times is that dense cities like Berlin, which offer good public transportation, are the solution to the high gasoline prices we are seemingly stuck with. Krugman contrasts Berlin and Atlanta: "Greater Atlanta has roughly the same population as Greater Berlin — but Berlin is a city of trains, buses and bikes, while Atlanta is a city of cars, cars and cars." So why don't more Americans choose to live in big...

Have a look at the screencap from today's This Week, then please answer this serious question: has ABC no shame? How does the network justify a round-table consisting of four liberals against one conservative? Let's review the batting order: * Frank Reich: Clinton's former Labor Secretary comes from the leftward reaches of the Dem party. He's a co-founder of the liberal American Prospect magazine. * Paul Krugman: Like Reich, a very liberal professor of economics, and a NYT columnist. * Donna Brazile: Dem activist, Gore 2000 campaign manager. * George Stephanopoulos: The show host was a senior political adviser to...