Ah, the best birthday present a boy could hope for! As a pure coincidence, my independent critiques of Krugman run on the same day.
In this piece at Mises.org, I take on Krugman’s recent thoughts on the Fed and employment data. An excerpt:
Steve Horwitz does a good job explaining why Krugman’s understanding of US banking history is flawed, because we didn’t have laissez-faire banking in the late 1800s. But we don’t even have to rely on such explanations for the matter at hand. Remember, these data weren’t pulled from Krugman after a session of waterboarding. He volunteered them as if they were somehow supposed to embarrass the critics of the Fed. What would the numbers have to look like, for Krugman to have admitted, “Hmm, it seems like for once, empirical reality has turned against my Keynesian nostrums”? Would the post-Fed panics have to be three times as bad?
Then over at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), I have a post talking about Krugman’s Solyndra / JP Morgan commentary. I had written this in the midst of a week where I gave up caffeine, and it shows. Look at Angry Bob:
Paul Krugman is a Nobel-winning economist with expertise on international trade, yet he has a disturbing habit of pontificating with confidence on matters where he is either deliberately misleading or is simply ignorant of the basic facts. I have previously documented this habit when Krugman commented on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, and more recently when he carelessly repeated “facts” about mercury emissions that were obviously nonsense to anyone with common sense.
Yet even in these examples, one had to actually know the relevant literature to be able to uncover Krugman’s misleading and/or simply false claims; the layperson wouldn’t really know where to begin. It’s rare that Krugman says something that is blatantly, demonstrably false; he usually covers his tracks pretty well, so that his fans will think Krugman’s critics are simply nitpicking and demonizing the poor guy.
Well, none of that applies to Krugman’s recent commentary on J.P. Morgan’s $2 billion trading losses.
As Tyler Cowen says, do read the whole thing.