David Angelo

Krugman “proves that austerity doesn’t work” because it hasn’t helped to bring down interest rates in Europe.

Ireland, for example, has imposed savage austerity, yet the interest rate on its 10-year bonds is still 6.7 percentage points higher than Germany’s, down from recent peaks but still far above its level when the austerity program began.

Yet somehow nobody in the pain caucus says hey, this was supposed to work but it didn’t, so our theory is all wrong. Instead, they just insist that we double down, continuing the beatings until morale improves.

Just saying.

Uh, yeah. That’s how it works. High interest rates are part of “austerity.” When rates are zero and money is free, it’s not “austerity.”

Notice: “…the interest rate on its 10-year bonds is still 6.7 percentage points higher than Germany’s, down from recent peaks but still far above its level when the austerity program began.” So, the rates are falling? As in, they took “the beatings” and now seem to be restoring order. That’s how he proves it doesn’t work - because it’s going according to plan.

Just saying.

mUHahahahahahahaha! (deep breath) hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah!!!!!!

Oh, Krugsy!

He decided to respond to people (like me) referring to an old piece he wrote calling Social Security a “Ponzi game.” And hilarity ensues!

Well, I gather that a lot of right-wingers are quoting selectively from a piece I wrote 15 years ago in the Boston Review, in which I said that Social Security had a “Ponzi game aspect.”

Yes, “quoting selectively” - that is to say, “accurately.” Aside from providing the original source, I posted the whole paragraph, because, frankly, the context SUPPORTS the claim he thinks Social Security is a “Ponzi game.” In fact, on his blog, Krugman reprints the quote, in context, from the EXACT spot I did!

here’s the full, Krugman-approved, quote again:

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in). source

But then it just gets absurd. Krugman goes into full hack mode:

Notice what I didn’t say. I didn’t say that the system was a fraud; I didn’t say that it would collapse.

Right. He didn’t say the system was a “fraud.” He just equated it twice to a “Ponzi game” which is synonymous with “fraud.” And, he’s right, he didn’t say “it would collapse,” he merely said “the Ponzi game will soon be over.” (By the way, this is the guy who is the de facto flag-bearer of elite liberal intellectual integrity.)

But anyway, anyone who uses my statement as some kind of defense of Rick Perry and all that is playing word games. I explained what I meant in that Boston Review article, and it was nothing at all like the claims that Social Security is a fraud, is destined to collapse, and all that.

Okay. Let’s put aside the clear fact Krugman implied it would collapse. I want to address the question of “fraud” because, for starters, I don’t think Rick Perry uses that word. He says “Ponzi,” just like Krugman (when Krugman says “Ponzi,” he’s not implying the system is a “fraud.” Yet when Krugman hears Perry say “Ponzi,” Perry is implying the system is a “fraud.” How’s that for integrity?)

Financially, Social Security is EXACTLY a Ponzi scheme. However, Social Security differs from a Ponzi scheme with regard to implementation. In the private sector, someone running a Ponzi scheme has to also be guilty of fraud because he has to trick people into joining. With Social Security, it’s mandatory! They shouldn’t have to commit fraud - YET THEY STILL DO. Have you ever heard of the “Social Security trust fund?” That is total fraud. It’s funded entirely with government bonds. Now, you tell me, how does a government program fund itself with government bonds? A bond is a government liability. 

Krugman closes:

Of course, the usual suspects won’t pay any attention to what I’ve just said.

Of course, the problem is that some people actually do pay attention to what he says.

From the commenters on Krugman’s blog post:

“Yes, we are listening. And you are right; and we understand the distinction that you are making. Keep it up! We need your brain!”

“So your reputation among liars and truth-twisters is ruined by this old article? Oh wait! It is your reputation among truth tellers and those of impeccable academic credentials that matters to us. And, of course, your reputation is impeccable. I know you can’t part the Red Sea or walk on water, but you can work on that.”

“Have no fear… you will still be taken out of context no matter what. You could have written that “Social Security is not a ponzi scheme” and the right wing media a bloggers would leave out the “not”. It’s getting that intellectually dishonest out there.”

Anyone want to split a timeshare in Shanghai?

Well, if you’ve been reading the news lately, you’ve probably seen a certain high profile public figure making comments equating Social Security to a “ponzi scheme.”

For example:

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over…

That ignorant Texas moron Rick….

…wait, what’s that? That quote isn’t from Rick Perry? It’s…

…Paul Krugman?

Well. Well. Well. Maybe there’s something me and Krugsy agree on after all.

(source)

Krugman loves to whine!

I’d imagine he’s the kinda guy who posts a negative Yelp review about a restaurant because they didn’t grate the parmesan like another restaurant he went to once.

I’ll summarize his position about potential government solutions: “They aren’t doing ENOUGH. It’s bad because I’m the only compassionate person in the universe and I think any number, short of infinity, is inadequate government spending.”

He just doesn’t think ANYTHING is ever enough!

…Mitt Romney declared that he would seek a replacement for Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, essentially because Mr. Bernanke has tried to do something (though not enough) about unemployment.

Monetary policy has been a complete DISASTER. That’s why Bernanke should be gone. Every time he “tried to do something” he failed and hurt the economy even more. Of course, Krugman didn’t think he ruined it ENOUGH.

Krugman continues:

Yes, Mr. Romney has issued a glossy, well-produced “jobs plan,” but it might best be described as 59 bullet points with nothing there…

Okay. Well, I’m DYING to know what more Krugman thinks Bernanke should do then. A glossy list of bullet points would be sufficient. What MORE should Bernanke do, Krugman?

It doesn’t get lower than ZERO.

Maybe Bernanke should directly hire the 14 million unemployed? At this rate, he may need that many to run the printing presses.

Bernanke has only a few tools. He’s used them all. Rates are at zero. He’s purchased over a trillion - that’s TRILLION - dollars in bonds. He’s maxed out his options! How can Krugman think he hasn’t done ENOUGH? It’s bonkers. What more could he possibly do?

Personally, I’m afraid to find out.

You know sometimes when insecure people use really fancy words to prove they’re smart? And it just confirms your suspicion they aren’t? That’s what I got from today’s Krugman.

This is one of his legendary “wonkish” articles, which means there’s tons of graphs and references to his dissertations and all sorts of vocabulary designed to IMPRESS! Unfortunately, all Krugman does is prove he doesn’t have the first clue about what drives gold markets.

Krugman says there are two types of people, “inflationistas and deflationistas.”

The inflationistas look at budget deficits and monetary base, and see severe inflation and soaring interest rates as the obvious outcome; the deflationistas say, hey, we’re in a liquidity trap, so monetary base is sterile and budget deficits are just soaking up some but not all of the world’s excess saving.

Well, I’m certainly not sure the world has “excess savings,” but at least Krugman admits budget deficits erode savings. And, obviously, Krugman calls himself a “a big deflationista.”

Now, just to clarify some terms for you guys. “Deflation” is when the purchasing power of the currency RISES. “Inflation” is when the purchasing power of the currency DECLINES. Mechanically, this is done by increasing or decreasing the money supply. When you INCREASE/INFLATE the money supply, each dollar in circulation is worth LESS because, well, there’s more of them.

Apparently, Krugman thinks that soaring gold prices prove his “deflationista” theory!

Well, I’ve been thinking about it — and the answer surprised me: soaring gold prices may be quite consistent with a deflationista story about the economy.

Hilarious. But let’s hear him out.

My usual response has been that I have no idea what drives the price of gold, to say that it’s a market driven by hoarding in Asia, Glenn Beck followers, whatever. But maybe I’ve been too flip here. Why not think about what actually should be driving gold prices?

Krugman’s usual response is right: he has no idea. Does he really think Glenn Beck followers have ANY measurable effect on this market? This is a multi-TRILLION dollar commodity.  If Beck could direct hundreds of billions of dollars in DAILY purchases through his TV show, he probably wouldn’t be off the air.

Then, of course, there’s Asian hoarding. But Krugman doesn’t think about what drives that. Is there a “Grenn Beck?” Or maybe the Chinese government is actively promoting gold ownership for a specific reason? To quote Yu Yongding: “Given that many large developed countries are simply printing money (and the recent rumours are that the US might return to quantitative easing) China must realise that it can no longer invest in the paper assets of the developed world.” (source) Looks like China falls squarely into the “inflationista” camp. That might be because China is experiencing inflation. That’s relevant to the United States because, well, China pegs their currency to the dollar. In other words, they are experiencing inflation to keep up with dollar inflation.

But let’s look at Krugman’s “economics.” (This is where the real good, intellectually-bankrupt propaganda comes in.) Again, he argues that gold is RISING in price because of DEFLATION. The overly-complicated academic explanation he offers for this paradox can be explained by the “Hotelling model.” As he puts it:

Well, my starting point is the old but very fine analysis by Henderson and Salant (pdf), which was actually the inspiration for my first good paper, on currency crises. H-S suggested that we start by modeling gold as an exhaustible resource subject to Hotelling pricing.

Well, okay. That’s interesting, because the immediate take-away from Henderson and Salant is that we shouldn’t model gold as an exhaustible resource subject to Hotelling pricing:

In this simple form, the exhaustible-resource model fails to capture the most salient characteristics of the price path of gold since 1968. It does not predict persistent increases in the price at greater than the rate of interest, nor can it explain either the existence or timing of most drops in the price. Henderson and Salant

Pretty neat doublespeak from Krugman, then huh? The whole blog rests on the notion Hotelling pricing applies to gold, even after the “wonkish” paper he himself cites has already discredited that assertion.

I want to just point out the MASSIVE difference between gold and “exhaustible” resources. Oil is “exhaustible.” You know an “exhaust pipe?” That’s the exhaust. Oil gets destroyed by use. Gold is “finite” more than “exhaustible.” You don’t burn gold - and, even if you did, it’s still gold. Krugman’s blog hinges on the idea that the gold “stock gradually disappears into real-world uses like dentistry.” So, if you believe that in the past 10 years gold has gone from $300/oz to $1900/oz because of the high demand for fillings, well then, I guess Krugman is your guy.

Anyway….

Krugman sums it up:

For this is essentially a “real” story about gold, in which the price has risen because expected returns on other investments have fallen; it is not, repeat not, a story about inflation expectations. Not only are surging gold prices not a sign of severe inflation just around the corner, they’re actually the result of a persistently depressed economy stuck in a liquidity trap — an economy that basically faces the threat of Japanese-style deflation…

He’s not, repeat not, correct about anything. First of all, gold is not an investment. It’s a piece of metal. It doesn’t make anything or do anything. It’s money. Think of it as another currency. From the country “Goldinia.” But the central bank there can’t print endless amounts of it. The reason people buy it is as a “store of wealth.” It’s to keep from losing your purchasing power. And what threatens your purchasing power? (hint: not “deflation.”)

Imagine you had $35 dollars in 1971. You have three choices: buy gold, buy stocks, hide it in a mattress. The DJIA in 1971 was about 850, so $35 was basically 4% of the Dow. Today, 4% of the dow would be about $450. Not bad! Let say you bought gold. $35 in 1971 bought one ounce of gold. Today, that’s worth $1850. HEY! Even better! And if you hid it under the mattress? Well, you’d have $35. Because the government printed a lot more dollars since then. That’s “inflation” for you. It drives the cost (in dollars) of gold up because the dollars today are worth LESS than dollars in 1971 while gold’s value is basically a constant.

Another suspicious Krugman editorial decision was to completely ignore the fact that gold has been steadily rising for 10 YEARS. Were we in a “liquidity trap” during the housing bubble, when gold went from $300 to $600? Was “deflation” driving gold prices then? Has “deflation” been driving the price of just about everything (except housing and wages) up in the past 5 years?

Does the Hotelling model apply to bologna?

Bologna, all beef or mixed, per lb. (453.6 gm) (U.S. city average) 
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Are investors in China hording bologna because the “expected returns on other investments have fallen?” Is that why people are paying more for bologna? Because the price is about to go down?

No one buys into rising prices because they expect the price to go down. That’s moronic. Yet, that’s Krugman’s explanation.

So now I’ve heard everything. A Nobel laureate explaining rising costs are caused by deflation. Wonkish indeed!

The logic, if you think about it, is pretty intuitive: with lower interest rates, it makes more sense to hoard gold now and push its actual use further into the future, which means higher prices in the short run and the near future.

It has no “actual use.” It’s just a store of wealth. For the last time, if there’s deflation, then the price of gold will go DOWN in the future. So how does it make any sense to buy it now and wait for the price to go down? People buy it because they know the price will go UP. What causes the price to go UP? Inflation! (No matter how much Krugman insists “it is not, repeat not, a story about inflation expectations.”). Gold production has been remarkably stable the past 10 years. The recent spikes followed an announcement from The Federal Reserve that they’d keep interest rates at zero for at least two years and an agreement in congress to monetize another $2.4 trillion before the election. Both decisions are inflationary and both announcements saw spikes in gold prices:

Then again…I guess it could be Glenn Beck’s fault.

This is hilarious.

Krugman is pathetic. He got teased in school and now - thanks to ill-gotten fame - uses his position to defend what he perceives as the poor downtrodden masses. Ya know, so they’ll love him. “The Beatings Must Continue.” GROAN.

Krugman actually has the nerve to denounce Germany’s finance minster. I can’t read the op-ed by Wolfgang Schaeuble because I don’t subscribe to The Financial Times - but I don’t have to read it. Economically, GERMANY PWNS THE U.S.

Krugman quotes Schaeuble:

Governments in and beyond the eurozone need not just to commit to fiscal consolidation and improved competitiveness – they need to start delivering on these now.

Then Krugman whines:

So, austerity now now now — none of this waiting until recovery is well underway. And never mind concerns about deepening the slump – the confidence fairy will come to our rescue, and anyway, pain is good for the soul.

Schaeuble is saying the way TO recovery is fiscal consolidation (Krugman’s dreaded Austerity Bully).

Krugman continues:

What’s so striking about all this, from an economist’s point of view, is the absence of anything that sounds like a model. It’s all about virtue and vice, with just the assumption that virtue will be rewarded.

Just hilarious. The “absence of anything that sounds like a model?” The “assumption” that virtue will be rewarded?

How about “The German Economy?” Is that enough of a “model?” Here’s a graph to go along with “the model.”

And here’s some more data for the “model”: German unemployment fell in August for a 26th straight month.

Krugman:

And when the finance minister of Europe’s largest economy thinks and talks like this, at a time when the core euro economies are in a liquidity trap while the peripheral economies are desperately in need of strong external demand to make their austerity programs workable, it’s hard to see what hope there is for the euro project.

When the German Finance Minister thinks and talks like that, maybe you should LISTEN to him, Krugsy. Because you and the Keynesians running the U.S. economy (into the ground) don’t have a great track record as of late. The “peripheral economies” in Europe that are in trouble are the ones with….HUGE GOVERNMENT DEBT.

Jesus.

FINALLY! Krugman gives us “a simple explanation of why the stimulus was so clearly inadequate to the task.”

He basically says the government didn’t spend enough to make up for the loss in GDP. Well, during the contraction between 2008 and 2009, GDP fell from $13.3 Trillion to $12.6 Trillion. In other words, $700 Billion, or about 5% (source). He says the stimulus of $800 Billion “just wasn’t big enough to do the job.”

Apparently, it wasn’t done fast enough because it was over 2 years.

But, then again, he also entirely fails to mention the $1.25 Trillion mortgage-backed security purchase program from the Federal Reserve over the same time period. I guess he forgot about it! Totally forgets about it. A program whose size is 10% of GDP. Whoops!

I ALWAYS hear the argument that the stimulus wasn’t “big enough.” I think the Average Joe gets that opinion from Krugman without really thinking about it. But, what would have been “big enough?” If spending more would have been good, why not make the stimulus program $100 Trillion dollars? or $100 Quadrillion?

Why not, at the very least, consider the possibility that stimulus doesn’t work?

Krugman links to a news article in his op-ed by the venerable McClatchy Newspapers (you know, the FAMOUS McClatchy Newspapers!)

For example, when McClatchy Newspapers recently canvassed a random selection of small-business owners to find out what was hurting them, not a single one complained about regulation of his or her industry…

Yeah, when a liberal fringe paper “canvassed” about a half dozen people, they didn’t complain about regulation in THEIR INDUSTRY.

“My biggest problem is the current status of the banking system and how it’s being over-regulated,” Dennis Sweeney, a co-owner of Summit Sportswear Inc., told The Kansas City Star.

So, of the 6 or 7 people “canvassed,” one of them does see regulation as his “biggest problem” (albeit not the stringent regulation of the sportswear industry).

But, let’s look at the credibility of the other business owners “canvassed.” For instance, Krugman is right, government regulation is NOT Lynn Swager’s biggest problem:

“The thing that chokes us, believe or not, is the Internet. There are so many things that are accessible on the Internet that they can purchase for less than I can purchase from my distributor,” Swager told McClatchy. “Everybody thinks the Internet is this great thing that is happening to the world, but it is really, I think, killing a lot of small business. People that we talk to that are no longer in business say the same thing exactly.”

So, I guess if Krugman wants us to take these opinions seriously, we’re going to have to destroy the internet. Of course, the only positive economic effect that would have is ending Krugman’s blog.

Krugman rehashes his same old propaganda in today’s op-ed.

He basically says that the government’s obsession with spending cuts has hurt the economy. I find that such a creative position to take, especially since the government is currently running it’s largest budget AND deficit in history. I find it really interesting how Krugman blames spending cuts for economic problems when the news of the summer was the government’s decision to RAISE the debt ceiling by $2.4 Trillion dollars. I’m really impressed with that line of thought.

Ever since the acute phase of the financial crisis ended, policy discussion in Washington has been dominated not by unemployment, but by the alleged dangers posed by budget deficits.

So incredibly interesting. So, let be get this straight…Washington is obsessed with cutting spending, but - at the same time - adding $2.4 Trillion to the debt over the next 11 months?

Although you’d never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs.

The past year has proven that spending cuts don’t create jobs? Even though this year we’ve ADDED $1.6 Trillion in debt for this budget and plan to add $2.4 trillion in debt through the next year? What did we cut, again? I think I’m missing something. If we’ve been “slashing government spending,” wouldn’t this graph being going DOWN?

Did I accidentally hang it upside-down? From where I’m sitting, it looks like the government keeps spending more.

So short-run deficits aren’t a problem, lack of demand is, and spending cuts are making things much worse. Maybe it’s time to change course?

uhhhhh, what “cuts?” It is time to change course, but our course has been INCREASING spending and debt. Right? Am I reading that graph correctly? Sorry guys, I don’t have a Nobel Prize, but my ignorant right-wing nutjob eyes really think that line is going UP. We’ve spent a lot of money since 2008, and things have not been better. So, since that didn’t work - the solution is to do more of it? And also PRETEND we’ve been cutting spending?

Man, I wish I took economics at Princeton!

This is one of Krugman’s more infuriating tactics. He’ll post a graph from the Federal Reserve (to impress the monkeys in his comment section) and then make sweeping generalizations about policy that are not even remotely supported by the graph. But it’s JUST confusing enough that the layman doesn’t really pick up on it. Which is why I consider Krugman a propagandist.

Do the dismal economic numbers really reflect the turn to fiscal austerity? I keep hearing people say no, because austerity hasn’t actually happened yet in America. But they’re wrong.

So, to recap; interest rates at 0% and the federal government running the largest budget AND deficit AND debt in history, and Krugman wants us to believe the bad economic numbers are the result of austerity? Okay…

The fact is that the fading out of the stimulus, and in particular of aid to state and local governments, is already and noticeably leading to substantial withdrawal of government demand.

Then he adds this graph:

Impressive! Wow! That shows a HUGE drop-off in “government demand.” Obviously, austerity is what’s driving the current economic trouble! Look at that steep decline! That evil right-wing austerity! It’s so clear and simple!

Unfortunately, if we venture off the Krugman Ranch, we can easily find evidence the “blame austerity” notion is nonsense. The graph he posts is suuuuucccch propaganda, it’s hilarious. That one shows only year-over-year changes. Let’s go ahead and look at the whole graph:

And that’s adjusted for inflation!!!! So yes, government consumption has gone down a little bit, to be juuust slightly off the all-time high. Krugman wants you to think that the government going back to the dark ages of 2008-level spending is what’s crippling the economy. His graph certainly look like a “substantial withdrawal of government demand,” but mine shows the truth - and the total dollar amount of spending.

When the recession officially ended, spending was rising at an annual rate of around $60 billion; now it’s declining at an annual rate of $60 billion. That difference is around 1 percent of GDP, and maybe 1.5 percent once you take the multiplier into account. That makes the turn toward austerity a major factor in our growth slowdown.

Yes, year-over-year, “government consumption” has gone down $56 billion - to $2.5 trillion. That’s a decline of 2.184%. Incidentally, during the exact same period (4/1/10-4/1/11), TOTAL government spending rose by…$1.49 TRILLION dollars.

So, you tell me, are we experiencing the ill-effects of austerity, or mass delusion?

UPDATE: I didn’t even notice this the first time: “…it’s declining at an annual rate of $60 billion. That difference is around 1 percent of GDP…” What? GDP in chained 05 dollars is $13.260 Trillion. $56 Billion is 0.42% of that. That’s “around” 1 percent if you assume being off by 138% is “around.” What a hack!

I hope you guys appreciate the sacrifice I’m making having to read Krugman, let alone reply to him. Today’s nonsense.

To keep it short, let’s focus on two quotes from Krugster:

Thrift leads to lower investment;

Thrift leads to LOWER investment? Maybe Krugman should spend less time making mixtapes of indie pop and actually learn economics.

Thrift is ALL that leads to investment. Who invests? The guy with money in a savings account, or the guy with 4 credit cards he pays the minimum on each month? Does blowing your paycheck the day you get it make you an “investor?” When people or companies want to invest in something, they have to save up for it. That’s how money works. You have to save to buy things unless we’re all supposed to just “invest” in Chuck-E-Cheese prizes. And even at Chuck-E-Cheese you have to save up the tickets to buy the good stuff! Investing is the entire point of savings. Is Krugman contradicting NATURAL LAW? Just look at animals. Squirrels save nuts. Bears eat a lot of food and save it as fat for the winter. Those are FORWARD-looking economic decisions AKA investments. “Thrift leads to lower investment?” That’s staggering for anyone to say. What’s a bigger investment? $5 or $10,000? How do you get $10,000? Use your own brain here, folks.

the other quote:

And the broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy: something that forces firms to replace capital, even if that something seemingly makes them poorer, can stimulate spending and raise employment.

Wrong. The broken window fallacy is still a fallacy. Krugman is really showing his hand here today! Look up “Broken Window Fallacy” and learn something about it. It doesn’t stop being true just to support Krugman’s propaganda.

Krugman’s op-ed.

There’s really nothing more tedious than having to read Krugman’s daily whining about how stupid and evil Republicans are. He’s supposed to be this genius Nobel Laureate, but he sounds just like a sophomore at Emerson.

Krugman cites this quote from Rick Perry:

“I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

And Krugman’s commentary:

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

Whoa! Calm down, Krugsy! How many fair-trade lattés did you have at Whole Foods this morning?

Let me break this down: I don’t fully accept the mainstream view of “Global Warming.” I just don’t. Excuse me if I don’t automatically buy into a world-view with Al Gore as the spokesperson. Now - do I hate science? Am I “vile?” Or is Krugman the one rejecting scientific inquiry?

Let’s find out! Using….The Scientific Method!

Observation:
Many people, specifically Republicans, are vilified for questioning the legitimacy of the theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. Data!

Hypothesis
The people who so severely attack anyone questioning global warming are actually the ones rejecting science. They nonetheless proceed in this laughable hypocrisy because they’re self-loathing individuals who lack a proper understanding of the world.

Prediction:
The hypothesis is correct.

Method:
Let’s just collect some data on liberal hysteria and climate history.

Data:
In the 1970s, liberals - and their scientists - became absolutely convinced we were doomed by climate change. The one difference was, during that time, they said it was global COOLING. It was hysteria, and I’ll pull only a couple quotes but you can microfiche the rest.

“Weather satellites surprisingly have discovered that the permanent snow and ice cap in the northern hemisphere has increased sharply In size.” -Anchorage Daily News 5/12/74

“Dr. J. Murray Mitchell, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the world has been cooling off in the long run.” -Lawrence Journal-World 3/11/79 [A real, live scientist, no less!]

and, more pointedly, in an Associated Press article titled “Scientists predict cooler climate”:

The great ice ages of the last half-million years were caused by changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun, scientists said Monday. And having made this determination, they predicted a long-term trend toward cooler climate in the future. Columbia, Brown and Cambridge university scientists said they determined with certainty that cyclical changes in the shape and tilt of the earth’s orbit and seasonal position were the “fundamental cause” of the ice ages.

Wait a second. Scientists from Columbia, Brown and Cambridge? SCIENTISTS?! These SCIENTISTS say “with certainty” that climate change isn’t man-made???? I’m feeling dizzy, call my doctor - or, better yet, Nancy Pelosi.

That story also appeared in none other than the NEW YORK TIMES in 1976 in an article titled, “ICE AGES ATTRIBUTED TO EARTH ORBIT SHIFT; Scientists Find Periodic Changes in Path Around Sun ‘Positive Test’ of Climatic Theory” source

Conclusion:
The data set is obviously too small to draw meaningful conclusions from. Krugman may laugh at people who think the Earth is only 5000 years old, but that’s about the appropriate age for it if you want to pretend temperatures from the past 40 years constitute a trend line. It’s absurd. Krugman looks at this climate data the way he looks at Treasury bond yields, like a day trader. He sees two years of bond yields falling and basically stakes his entire reputation (what’s left of it) on the idea they’re just going to keep falling forever. Science is about the “big picture” - not just the section of the graph that supports your propaganda.

Liberals always want to say “Scientists have PROVEN global warming.” Okay. Show me that data. Let’s look at it. You’ve never seen it? You’ve never seen their data proving global cooling, either? Oh. So you’re a fraud who goes into histrionics anytime one of your “progressive” celebrities tells you to? And you think that puts “science” on your side? Personally, I’ve seen enough horseshit from “economists” to question what I hear from “scientists” - especially when The New York Times reports that “scientists” from “Columbia, Brown and Cambridge” have said “with certainty” that climate change is the result of orbital shifts.

The theories are changing faster than the temperature. I think the only appropriate response to global warming at this point is to “chill out.” Yeah, don’t litter and try not to pollute - but don’t call someone “vile” or “anti-intellectual” because they question the empirical analysis of a political faction.

I know the world is in serious danger - but I think the Krugmans will get us before the CFCs. That may be “anti-intellectual,” but if Krugman is the “intellectual” that’s a title I’m happy to bear.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. We’ve marked Rebel (or is it “unarmed civilian?”) victory several times now.

No word yet on where Qaddafi is. White House officials predict they’ll find him sometime in early September of next year.

Gold is now trading at $1913 an ounce. 1913, incidentally, was the year congress authorized the Federal Reserve, with a goal of “price stability.”

Which is interesting because, in 1913, gold was $20/ounce.

Looks like the press is already beginning the saber-rattling needed for Krugman’s alien invasion to save our economy.

Scientists warn that aliens may come to destroy us

Once again, Krugman swings and misses in his attempt to brand Texas as some mindless Republican hellhole.

Finally, the wages issue. Douthat makes a lot of the fact that median wages in Texas aren’t that much below national median wages. The key thing you need to bear in mind is who we’re comparing Texas with. There are a number of states with very low median wages, mainly in the south — and Texas isn’t a low-wage state compared with, say, Mississippi. But if you are comparing Texas with prominent blue states, it looks like this:

The obvious consideration is cost of living. If I had to pick the four most expensive states to live in, they would be those “prominent blue states.” Let’s disregard California, considering they are an economic catastrophe with over 12% unemployment (I’d rather have a job at $15/hour than be unemployed at $18/hour.). Then let’s look at Massachusetts. Okay, people make more per hour. But, as someone who lived there for many years, I can tell you that 15 dollars goes a lot further in Dallas than 20 goes in Boston. This is a classic propaganda post from Ole’ Krugsmen. Apples and Oranges. There’s so much to criticize Texas for, but he just goes for these meaningless comparisons that he knows don’t say anything, but might sway the minds of his amenable (brainwashable) liberal audience.

Krugman knows this post is complete horseshit, because after posting it he adds an “update”:

Update: Yes, I know about the cost of living. Read my actual argument.

Oh! Okay! Well, I had the misfortune of reading the “actual argument.” It doesn’t contain one sentence supporting this blog post. He’s basically just linking to another argument (also idiotic) because he admits the median wage indicator is meaningless. This is a first for me….I actually had Paul Krugman invalidate his own post!

Traveling. Doing shows in Chicago.

Krugman is giving me lots of ammo, but don’t have the time just yet to respond. I’ll make up all lost ground, promise!

Hang loose.

-DA

Puke.

I’m not going to defend Rick Perry. I don’t know anything about him and what I do know doesn’t encourage me to learn more.

But, Krugman…he’s just such a hack it’s ridiculous.

Perry goes after Bernanke for debasing the currency (which is exactly what Krugman wants him to do, for reasons he is incapable of coherently explaining). So, Krugman goes after Perry.

But somehow everyone I’ve read seems to miss the bit about Bernanke playing politics — implying that anything he does would be in the interests of helping Obama get reelected.

That’s a hell of an accusation to make — especially when you bear in mind that Bernanke was a Bush appointee. But this is apparently how people like Perry think.

After this, I suspect that Perry is a shoo-in for the nomination.

He’s saying Bernanke doesn’t play politics. Do I need to continue discrediting Krugman, or can I retire from this blog now?

Long story short, Bernanke obviously gets all of his power from the government. He needs them because they can end the institution he’s linked his life and legacy to. Ron Paul wants to end The Fed. Perry seems to want to end it.

I don’t think it’s an outrage “implying that anything [Bernanke] does would be in the interests of helping Obama get reelected.” Nor is it a “hell of an accusation to make.” IT’S OBVIOUS. The Fed always kisses the ring of the ruling party so they can keep their game running. They control money. Does Krugman honestly think they aren’t political? Isn’t he a “political expert?”

“But this is apparently how people like Perry think.” Yeah. Not everyone is as delusional as you, Krugsy!

As usual…pulling my hair out.

Krugman wants to shit on Texas (the symbolic “stronghold” of Republicans). That’s his only goal. He can’t do it. He’s too clueless.

The graph he posts is a joke. It’s presented as some amazing “exposé” of what a sham Texas’ relative economic stability has been.

All Krugman manages to do is embarrass himself again.

…straight from FRED: the ratio of nonfarm employment to total population. The red line is the nation as a whole, the blue line Texas.

You don’t want to make much of the fact that the Texas line is lower, since the state has a high birth rate and hence a large proportion of children. Farm employment may also factor in here.

LOL. Take a look at that. Draw your own conclusions on what that means. Having trouble? That’s why Krugman posts it - because it’s sort of confusing. That’s the only way he can spread his propaganda. Too bad it’s not confusing ENOUGH.

What you see is that the percentage of people working in non-farm jobs in Texas is only slightly lower than the rest of the country. Did you spot Krugman’s apology for this article? It’s this: “Farm employment may also factor in here.”

YEAH - NO SHIT.

You think the largest agricultural state in the nation might have their non-farm employment ratio affect by…..”farm employment.” Jesus. Krugman’s grasping at so many straws these days, HE should be considered farm employment.

But this graph should put paid to the notion that Texas somehow escaped the recession, or that there was something miraculous about its job creation.

This graph tells us absolutely nothing about the recession. It shows a ratio that’s been nearly constant for ten years and says more about demographics. It’s like Krugman put up a graph that showed the ratio of black people to total population and said “See! See! Texas has less black people than the average. They didn’t escape the recession!”

Once you take account of population growth, nothing special happened.

Uh….once you take account of population growth, it makes a good case for Texas. People are moving there. Why? Which is doing better, economically - Dallas or Detroit?

Give up, Krugsy. You lose.