ThinksGiving: ThinkProgress Reader Paul Krugman
By on Nov 16th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
ThinksGiving: ThinkProgress Reader Paul Krugman
Earlier this month, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman spoke at the Center for American Progress on The Conscience of a Liberal and the refusal of the media to cover substantive issues. He noted that while the situation is still “distressing,” it is improving thanks to the progressive movement and sites like ThinkProgress, who are “policing” the media. Watch it:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/KrugmanQuestion2.320.240.flv]
To contribute, simply click on this icon:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Paul,
November 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pmHow many Friedman units left until we leave Iarq?
Yesterday, I watched on youtube how Michael Moore blasted Blitzer for NOT telling the truth about Iraq, before 2003; and even more disgraceful how other opinions (Farenheit-9/11) were shut down, crapped over or simply dismissed as loony theories.
Well, Blitzer is the perfect example of mainstream media, always in concordance with the powers at the moment. Every single journalist that do not reach for the truth, that shrugged the shoulders when the invasion was prepared, etc. is as guilty as the present admin.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pmMr. Klugman, explain your role as a chief economic adviser (sorry, I don’t have the specific title in front of me) for Enron? How do you reconcile your activities for this company with the fallout, i.e., bankruptcy and loss of thousands of 401(k) participants’ life savings? Why should your economic outlook have more credibility than, say, Greenspan, considering your disastrous association with Enron?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pmMr. Klugman, please address these criticisms from very authoritative sources:
A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist which states: “A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world’s ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman’s perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory.”
A May 22, 2005 farewell column by New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent which stated: “Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.”
General criticisms that you employ hysterical and rhetorical language in a fashion that belies your presentation of otherwise objective data.
Finally, why are you ranked as number 8 in Bernard Goldberg’s 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America?
Concise and objective responses that refrain from vitriolic or ad hominen attacks are greatly appreciated.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pmPaul – I heard your interview with Mark “Mr. K” on KTLK (Los Angeles) – just wanted to say thank you for your writing; I always enjoy reading your work.
- A
November 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pmJT (From PKArchive.com)
To make it easier for anyone who is still interested in this story to get the facts right, here are some frequently asked questions about my role on the Enron advisory board, with answers.
1. What did I do? In early 1999 I was asked to serve on a panel that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. As far as I knew at the time, they genuinely wanted to learn something. I resigned from that board in the fall of 1999, when I accepted an offer to write for the New York Times.
2. What was I paid? It turns out that I was actually paid $37,500 – the last quarterly payment did not take place, because of my early resignation from the board.
3. Was this exorbitant? It didn’t seem so at the time. In 1998-1999 my normal fee for a one-hour business speech in Boston or New York was $20,000 – more if the speech involved long-distance travel. The Enron board required that I spend 4 days in Houston. So the sum they offered didn’t seem out of line – if anything it seemed rather low compared with my usual rates.
4. Was I being paid off because I was a journalist? That Enron board, when I was on it, did not strike me as a board of pundits. It included Larry Lindsey and Bob Zoellick – future Bush administration officials, though I had no way of knowing that, but certainly not journalists. It also included Pankaj Ghemawat, a strategy professor at Harvard, and Irwin Stelzer, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. (Stelzer had a column in the London Times, but I didn’t know that) The only person there I thought of as a journalist was William Kristol – I thought he was there to regale us with Washington gossip. And I regarded myself as being in the same category as Ghemawat – an academic expert, who was there because of his expertise.
An amazing number of people seem to think that I was paid by Enron while working for the Times. I wasn’t – when Enron approached me there was no hint that a Times connection lay in my future. As soon as I shook hands with the Times, I resigned from that board.
I did write monthly columns for two magazines in 1999, but I would not have described myself as a journalist – no more so than, say, Laura Tyson, Robert Barro, or or Gary Becker, respected economists who write monthly columns for Business Week. I wrote a monthly column for Fortune; that column was neither a major commitment of time nor a major source of income. I also wrote a monthly column, for very little money, for Slate. My main sources of income were teaching, consulting, and business speaking.
5. Did I disclose my connection? Yes. I reported it the one time I mentioned Enron in Fortune, almost three years ago. I reported it again the first time I mentioned Enron in the New York Times, in a highly critical article more than a year ago. I didn’t say that I was paid to serve on the board, but I thought that was obvious: who volunteers his services to for-profit corporations?
One point that seems to have been missed in all the mud-slinging: I was the only member of the board to declare my connection voluntarily. Lindsey and Zoellick, as government officials, were required to disclose their consulting; none of the other members uttered a peep before the January 2002 New York Times article about the board.
6. Should I have disclosed the sum of money I received? I have always understood that when writing about someone you disclose the fact of a potential conflict of interest, not the financial details. If I had disclosed the sum back in January 2001, when I first wrote about Enron for the New York Times, it would have sounded strange – I’m sure people would have accused me of bragging.
7. Did the payment from Enron cause me to write anything I would not have written otherwise? No. Some people seem to think that because I had nice things to say about Enron’s energy trading in a Fortune article – in which I disclosed my connection – I was being out of character. But I have always been a free-market Keynesian: I like free markets, but I want some government supervision to correct market failures and ensure stability. Some of my pro-market Slate pieces enraged people on the left – check out The accidental theorist , or In praise of cheap labor . My Fortune piece about the rise of markets, illustrated by Enron’s energy trading, was an attempt to take a sunshine break from the dark pieces I had been writing about the Asian crisis; it was also a favor to my editors, who devoted that issue to e-business. It wasn’t at all out of character. In fact, the next column I wrote for Fortune was also a pro-market piece, with kind words for Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher.
8. Was Enron trying to buy my soul? That’s for them to answer. But I wasn’t selling.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pmSorry JT, he already answered those phony questions. Time to hit up some conservative echo chamber to find a new smear.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pmPaul Krugman is the man. I wish he actually read this blog.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThanks, Paul, for your ongoing contributions to helping to ensure that the people are not totally propagandized by the mainstream media! Actually, I am in agreement with Juan C. above in that any and all journalists who claim to reporting the news; i.e., actual facts, can now be held equally accountable and liable under the laws of this country for “aiding and abetting” the cause of criminal controversion of our constitution. It’s time to bring honest, factual information back into our news reporting; otherwise, it’s nothing but a few facts interspersed with the fictionalized version of the owner of the media outlet – which equals pure propaganda.
It’s time for the news media to either call themselves fiction writers or to begin to not continue to prostitute themselves and their personal self-respect for a paycheck by parroting the skewed version of the station owners.
If they do not, american will no longer hold them in high esteem or give them a second glance when it comes to finding credible information which is based on fact & science.
Thanks, also for the facts above.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pmJT,
While I can’t discuss all your points (I admit I’m not up to date Krugman’s work) I should be able to discuss the point you make about Goldberg.
When did he become an authority on who was ruining America? Why does it matter to you what his opinion is. Is he an expert on such things? Is he a Professor at a Prestigious University like Krugman is at Princeton? Or is he just another right-wing apologist that is still pissed that he lost his job at CBS all those years ago?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmBeefeater: Don’t kid yourself. Members of congress have admitted to reading this blog for information on the pulse of the progressive movement. You’re a fool if you fail to realize that much of what this site covers finds itself, sooner than later, reiterated by the politicos in one form or another.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmKrugman is definitely a reader of TP. He lists them in his favorite links on his official site.
And he even name drops TP in a column last month!
Can’t doubt he’s a fan!
November 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pmWe will lose our house soon because of the subprime mortgage bust and because of our own lack of due diligence in understanding how our $1650 per month mortgage could skyrocket to over $3000 per month in a very short period of time. We had done everything up to the time of refinancing that we should have, but absolutely no one would refinance when we hit the rising costs wall. As a result my wife has declared bankruptcy. We are back at square one. More like square negative one with the bankruptcy on the credit report.
Meanwhile, politicians are still only talking about fixing the problems as if it hasn’t happened yet, while at this very moment the first wave of American home owners are falling to this economic disaster. In a way, we are fortunate because we will be looking for a new place to live before the demand for rentals start to skyrocket the price of those dwellings.
While Think Progress embraces the good things about capitalism, it has never shied away from standing up for the little people. If I had the money to donate to Think Progress, I would. Sadly, I do not. I can only hope that others here will help keep this place going.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pmI think Paul’s great!
Here’s a little tidbit from one of his columns:
“What’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don’t belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples’ woes, you fit right in.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman&oref=slogin
November 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pm“why are you ranked as number 8 in Bernard Goldberg’s 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America?”
That guy’s book makes me either laugh or ccry depending on my mood at the time.
Sure, Jimmy “build house for poor people” Carter is #6 on the list, but George Bush isn’t.
Al Gore’s on the list, but Cheney isn’t.
Barbara Streisand is on the list, too, I believe. WTF? Streisand is screwing up America? What?
I mean, that list is just jaw-droppingly-batshit-crazy. I couldn’t make it up if I wanted to.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pm#15:
That’s a great quote. True, too.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pmJT,
In regards to Mr. Goldberg, I’d take anything he says or writes with a grain of salt considering this beauty of a quote:
“I admire Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly a lot because I think they’re standup guys.”
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/column/archive/2005_08_01_archive.php#112303738024276581
November 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmI see that some freak calling itself JT is on Krugman like a fly on s**t. Nice try with the smear job, goon, but it isn’t going to sell here. As another commenter points out, this Enron-related smear has been thoroughly debunked. Krugman is an American hero, wheras you are Bush-bootlicking scum.
That goes for you, too, Beefeater.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pmOh, and let’s not forget, Beefeater, JT, and all the other bootlickers: Kenny-boy Lay was the Bush 2000 campaign’s number one financial supporter, and an avowed close personal friend of Bush.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pmA May 22, 2005 farewell column by New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent which stated: “Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.â€
Okrent was a little man who tried to match intellectual wits with Krugman and found himself in way over his head. His nitpicking over the numbers used by Krugman was pathetic and ridiculous.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:17 pmJT = Just a Troll?
November 16th, 2007 at 3:17 pmJT = Just a Troll?
Comment by Tweedster
Just a twit.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pmThe right has been trying to destroy Krugman ever since Bush was elected. They did it because they know Krugman was on to them and their lies from the get go. Krugman has been right at every turn, and it infuriates the goosesteppers.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pm23 LOL..true true
November 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pmYeah, TP are heros. :-)
Troll droppings are so smelly and ugly. Uh, J(ust) a T(urd)
Buck Fush
November 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pmConnecticut Man1 – Sorry to hear about your plight. I suspect that ability you apparently have to look on the bright side will serve you well. Good luck to you and yours.
And thanks TP for providing a place to get news, perspective and a place to vent!
November 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pmKenny ‘Frito’ Lay is in Paraguay, enjoying the babes & beach…he’s holding the fort down until W & LaLa defect.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pmAnyone in mortgage trouble and with an employer’s 401K should be able to roll the mortgage into a 401K loan and earn the interest themselves as well as reduce their insurance payments. I did that about four years into a thirty year mortgage and effectively gained about a quarter mill.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pmAnything good in this country happens despite Bush.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:33 pmNo one has addressed these points:
Please address these criticisms from very authoritative sources:
A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist which states: “A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world’s ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman’s perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory.â€
Or, how about general criticisms that he employ hysterical and rhetorical language in a fashion that belies your presentation of otherwise objective data.
Concise and objective responses that refrain from vitriolic or ad hominen attacks are greatly appreciated. All those who resort to childish playground taunts, stay away.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pmPlease address these criticisms from very authoritative sources:
A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist which states:
That would be the November 13 article that says:
Next?
November 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pmPlease address these criticisms from very authoritative sources:
Comment by JT — November 16, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
The editorial board at the Economist isn’t any more authoritative than the editorial board at the WSJ. They are capitalist ideologues and propagandists. And give us just one example of “hysterical language” from Krugman’s writings. Or shut up.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pmJT has Krugman Derangement Syndrome, a common side effect of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, both of which ultimately derive from Authoritarian Bush Worship Syndrome, the laymen’s term for which is “goosestepper”.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pmGood work, gummitch. You stuffed JT good. Made him look like a first rate jackass.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:57 pmSo after sifting through the BS the only thing left standing is…
“Or, how about general criticisms that he employ hysterical and rhetorical language in a fashion that belies your presentation of otherwise objective data.”
Ironic considering the only thing you have left is “Some people think he twists the facts”, when that’s pretty much what you have done on this thread.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pmHopefully JT crawled back under his slimy rock to licks his wounds. Maybe he will think twice before showing up here again.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pmI am not really worried about ourselves. Many of the people that will lose their homes will be in seriously dire straits. Considering we will still have income, my wife has a pretty well paying job, we will still be able to afford starting over. We have been preparing for the inevitable for a while and trying to get politicians to do something fast. Something more legitimate than bailing out the companies like Countrywide (our mortgage company) while ignoring the homeowners completely. There was no trickle down from that corporate welfare for homeowners.
It is a problem for all Americans, and for all Americans to solve.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pmVerbalKint
You are an @ss and a weak bully who titters away at the keyboard hoping Mummy won’t catch you being a meanie. You make me laugh as I shake my head in wonderment at you.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pmYou are an @ss and a weak bully who titters away at the keyboard hoping Mummy won’t catch you being a meanie. You make me laugh as I shake my head in wonderment at you.
Comment by JT — November 16, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Same person who previously wrote: Concise and objective responses that refrain from vitriolic or ad hominen attacks are greatly appreciated. All those who resort to childish playground taunts, stay away.
’nuff said.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:06 pmCrickets? JT? No response to my quotation from the very article you were using to attack Krugman? Nada?
November 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pmRight wingers started cooking up phony stories about Krugman years ago when he was the only mainstream journalist with the balls to say that Bush’s tax cut would benefit primarily the most wealthy among us. The editorial board of the NYT, while daily reprinting right wing smears about Gore being a “liar,” refused to allow Krugman to write that Bush was lying about his tax cut. JT, starts out with one of the whoppers – Krugman never was anything like a “chief economic advisor” to Enron, so you might as well ignore the other whoppers JT vomits out as well.
A few years ago, when the Fed Chairman helpfully suggested to Americans that adjustable rate mortgages were a great idea, Krugman wrote that he didn’t even understand what the chairman was talking about and suggested to everyone who owned a home that they get a fixed rate loan for protection against a coming mortgage crisis. So, if the average person listened to Krugman instead of Bush and his friends, he wouldn’t be getting screwed today. Years ago, Krugman suggested that Bush’s monetary policies would lead to a collapse of the dollar’s value – JT’s favorite people screamed that Krugman was a “shrill alarmist.” Again, Krugman was absolutely correct and JT’s cult leaders were lying in our faces. Years ago, Krugman said the real cost of the Iraq war was going to be “far greater than the Bush administration is suggests.” JT’s people called him a “traitor and an alarmist.”
Krugman has consistently told the truth to the American people. That’s why Bush apologists must reflexively rush to slime him whenever they hear his name like slathering Pablov’s dogs.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI see our brave conservative muckraker, “JT,” ran off when people started responding to his smears of Professor Paul Krugman. Here is a detailed response to JT’s main smear that Krugman himself penned in the New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE2DC163AF936A15752C0A9649C8B63
JT, is a great example of today’s fact-challenged, Bush-worshipping right-wing troll. He begins with a self-satisfying mock polemic in which he asks Mr. Krugman (which he spells “Klugman”) to explain his roll as “chief economic adviser” to Enron. Of course, Professor Krugman never held such a post or anything even remotely resembling such a post. The professor served for less than a year on an advisory panel and resigned immediately upon beginning his columnist role at the NYT.
Pathetically, “JT” even includes the fact that Krugman is listed in Bernard Goldberg’s ridiculous “100 people” screed in which he finds one, count em’ one conservative out of his list of 100 people screwing up America. The absurdity of Goldberg’s nonsense seems to be lost on JT, but he’s absolutely sure he’s made a fine argument.
So, he begins with a lie and goes on to cite an absurd joke as an argument — and he’s full of himself. But apparently, not so full of himself that he can stay around and take the heat for his absurd argument.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:37 pm.
YOUR – THANKS-GIVING – MISSION…
… If U Choose 2 Accept…
Your American Citizen, Duty 2 the Next Generations…
2 Return, America 2 – WE the PEOPLE – Americans All !
ADD Your Photo and/or SIGN ON to OUR ( DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE ) image…
YUP… Just like OUR Founding Fathers Did !
( With your FULL understanding of what WE did 2 OUR Brothers and Sisters / the Indigenous Peoples of OUR land )
Here is how… U JUST DO IT !
Print Out – FREE – Impeach Image… here
http://www.RogerART.com
( top of page ) and then…
1. Glue IMPEACH IMAGE on LARGE poster board, paper, bed sheet, whatever…
2. Take it 2 Your ( THANKS-GIVING ) Get Together…
3. Take Family ( members or not ) Photos and GLUE em ON poster…
4. or… simply, SIGN YOUR NAME 2 it, ( Just like they did on the ORIGANAL – DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE
5. Digitally Photo your WORK ( “ADD-U-POSTER†) Make Copies 4 All… Every-One…
6. Take Image Back to where U Live… and… ADD, Neighbors, Friends (Photos & Signatures)
… And Then… Pass em Around / On
Hang your Works…
Make copies and send 2… Nancy P.
1. ( ALL ) your congress member…
2. the ( WHITE (millionaires) HOUSE )
3. Others… U know… Like, at your work and/or play…
PS… Also have ( HAPPY IMPEACHMENT on OUR tables TURKEY – POST CARDS )
The ( TURKEY bush, cheney, neo cons DAY ) GIVING-THANKS – 4 OUR CONSTATUTION ) etc. On hand, 2 pass out and around…
( Get em here… )
http://www.AfterDowningStreet.org
Send em OUT and/or Post all over OUR web…
Add Your Ideas,
Re-Write this as U C Fit…
and then
( Pass It On )
November 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pm.
Peace, Love & Later, Roger@RogerART.com & http://www.EarthBall.org
.
Special thanks to Paul Krugman, the economist and NYT columnist who is not afraid to speak the truth.
Thanks also to all well-informed TP readers who have refuted the immature smears against Krugman on this link. Thanks.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pmno maher tonight… found this on the site… appropos to this, too:
New Rule:
November 16th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“In America, it’s not the haves and have-nots.
It’s the haves and the been-hads.â€
“Or, how about general criticisms that he employ hysterical and rhetorical language in a fashion that belies your presentation of otherwise objective data.”
Grammatical errors in this aside …
I have seen Krugman speak on several occasions, and at no time did he (or his language) answer to the adjective “hysterical.” That is a description that must originate more in the mind and eye of what I can only guess must be a fevered beholder. I have rarely heard anyone who is more even-tempered and reasonable than Mr. Krugman.
All one has to do is view his “encounter” with Bill O’Reilly to know which side is more prone to “hysterical” language.
As far as rhetoric – what do you mean by this? Who does not employ “rhetoric” in order to make a point?
November 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm