Image 01 Image 03

Even a stopped clock.

Even a stopped clock.

Is right twice a day. Jeffrey Sachs, darling of the left, innovator of crazy theoriesmisguided foreign aid efforts, has called out Paul Krugman’s approach to economics: 

“Paul has a powerful bully pulpit in his New York Times column, and he’s been on one theme for three years,” Sachs said. Krugman has “under-emphasized the risks of growing debt, he’s over-asserted what we really know about the effects of these policies and he has underestimated the long-term need for public-sector change and reform,” Sachs said.

While scores of learned economists have been saying this for years, it would be nice to see the two worst public intellectuals I know go at each other. If one comes out with their reputation scratched, the world will be better for it.

Alas, if we’ve learned anything the past few years, it’s that the Krug doesn’t like a good debate. 


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Haha! Sit back and enjoy!

It’s like when I ask my wife, “Are you crazy?!” and she always mutters, “Oh God … a crazy person calling me crazy.”

Liberals like to pretend they are the party “of Science” based on their belief in Darwinism, which looks nothing like modern evolutionary theory, but completely ignore Math and Economics which is entirely provable and logical.

Over the last few years, Tom Maguire over at JustOneMinute blog has had multiple examples of Paul Krugman vs Paul Krugman, where over the course of a few months or years, Krugman takes completely opposite stands on the same issue.

    Neo in reply to Neo. | February 10, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    While on the topic of Krugman’s Great Insights from 2003, let’s recall that when George Bush (in concert with the G-7 and the IMF) was bashing China for maintaining an undervalued yuan, Krugman was explaining that Bush was a moron. By 2011, when Democrats were bashing China for maintaining an undervalued yuan, Krugman had figured out that maybe China was a “bad actor”.

    gs in reply to Neo. | February 10, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    “Yes, I have reversed adjusted my position of a few months ago. That became necessary because my advice was not followed.”

    Dude, where’s my Nobel Prize?

I R A Darth Aggie | February 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm

Would it be wrong of me to propose locking them in a room with a rusty spoon and the last man standing gets to walk out?

Two economists enter, one economist leaves!

It’s possible that some of them are finally realizing, or acknowledging, that liberal policies are principal sponsors of progressive corruption. I would have thought history provided sufficient guidance; but, apparently, in each generation there arise rebels with a cause and without a clue. Oh, well. The number of egotists with each successive generation continues to trend downward. Eventually, humanity will realize positive progress.

SoCA Conservative Mom | February 10, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Sachs said. Krugman has “under-emphasized the risks of growing debt…

It’s not just those on the left who under-emphasize the risks of growing debt. Yesterday on Fox, in a discussion on reforming entitlements and cutting the welfare state, Shepard Smith was bemoaning the fate of all those without jobs if welfare programs are cut (food stamps, unemployment benefits) knowing full well that these and all other programs are being funded by debt.

The elephant in the room is entitlements. Anyone serious about taking on this issue better be wearing asbestos panties/boxers/briefs.

The whole idea of Kenyesian economics never made sense to me. How does wasting resources help the economy? That’s what Kenysianism seems to say. Just push the money out there; it doesn’t matter what you spend on.

Both theoretical and empirical knowledge say that reducing government spending helps the economy more than anything else. Tax cuts help too, but government spending seems to be the key.