Krugman Has the Conscience of a Liberal So He Can Print the N-Word
You know how I thought it was funny that Krugman was criticizing Wall Street types for voting for a guy who would let them keep more of their money? And then I used an analogy to Medicare recipients to show how ridiculous Krugman’s rhetoric was? Well just to make sure, he himself confirmed today that I was on the right track in my criticism by writing:
Lots of people having fun with Mitt Romney’s post-election diagnosis, which is that President Obama played dirty: he won peoples’ votes by — horrors — actually making their lives better:
[Quoting a news story discussing Romney’s post-election thoughts:] “With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”
…
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said…[Back to Krugman’s commentary:] Gosh. People who will have health insurance under Obama but would have lost it under Romney voted for Obama. What’s wrong with those people?
And as for the rest of Krugman’s post, well, just go read it. I will just say this: I lived in Crown Heights for a stretch when I was a student at NYU. I’m betting if Paul Krugman walked those streets past 6pm, he would poop his pants.
OK behave yourselves in the comments kids…
I’m a little confused.
People vote their interests, yes.
Isn’t his point just that he finds some interests more legitimate than others.
Hitler likely polled well in the wanting-to-burn-Jews-in-ovens constituencies, but I don’t think it would be inconsistent to criticize them for that.
I would think that would be obvious, which makes me feel confused and like I might be missing something.
See, Daniel, the right is just RACIST. That’s why they don’t support the system where Democrats buy votes from those who are in the lower middle class and poor with “free” shit (vastly distorting the economy in the process). Atlas Shrugged and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress are just highly coded racist books.
Mitt Romney is just inconsistent again – didn’t he try to win by buying the votes of military contractors?
I disagree. For the most part I don’t think the right is racist at all. Of course there are wackos, but it’s highly misleading for you to characterize the movement that way Matt.
Woosh
Woosh
*Woooosh*
Seriously.
Are you REALLY that dense MF?
When people make crazy off the wall accusations there are usually at least two responses at my disposal and I have to judge which is most effective:
1. Get indignant and complain about how they are mischaracterizing the situation
2. Ignore it – the internet is full of trolls to slay.
If it is cloaked in sarcasm, a third option presents itself:
3. Feign ignorance of their sarcasm, which allows you to emphatically embrace precisely what they’re accusing you of not embracing.
I opted for 3 here.
As a wise man and a not-so-wise man recently said:
Woosh
Are you and Ken B so incredibly dense that you actually think that one obvious, 100%, no doubt sarcastic post that followed another obvious, 100%, no doubt sarcastic post, which was then followed by (what I thought was) my obvious, 100%, no doubt sarcastic “woosh”, should be viewed as anything other than a string of such sarcasm?
Unbelievable.
Daniel we should have spent more time watching Get Smart That’s where you learn all about double triple reverse backward psychology. We missed it by that much!
I think there was pretty clear reasoning behind why Matt was being sarcastic.
I wasn’t really being sarcastic at all. I was being entirely genuine and sincere. What I was doing was feigning ignorance. Regardless, there is clear reasoning behind why I did it.
The odd man out is you MF. What does could a sarcastic “woosh” possibly be trying to convey? So you knew I was feigning ignorance but you were just sarcastically pretending you did not know I was feigning ignorance? How does that even make sense?
This is a pretty sorry cover-up, MF.
Not his fault. He was under the Cone of Silence at the time.
DK:
I wasn’t really being sarcastic at all.
The odd man out is you MF. What does could a sarcastic “woosh” possibly be trying to convey? So you knew I was feigning ignorance but you were just sarcastically pretending you did not know I was feigning ignorance? How does that even make sense?
I had assumed both you and Matt were being sarcastic. This is because I assumed you actually believe the right is generally racist. I mean, you have, if I recall, interpreted some anti-Obama comments as racist when there was no sign of racism before.
That is why I added a third sarcastic comment, kind of sort of knowing at the time that it wouldn’t be obvious, but hoping it would be picked up anyway.
Now you’re saying you weren’t sarcastic, but sincere, which means my “woosh” inadvertently has become valid as a non-sarcastic (which means Ken B’s woosh is a double-woosh on him), and my subsequent woosh becomes I don’t know what.
I don’t see how this is a “cover up”. Bad joke, maybe.
@DK: “Those wall street toads backed Romeny ’cause he bribed ’em, and bribing voters is despicable. Know what’s even more despicable? Not liking the way Obama gave stuff to young voters to get their votes.”
But I really don’t think he’s saying that there’s anything inherently wrong with politicians doing things that voters like.
Am I taking crazy pills?
Isn’t that why we have… you know… voting? So that to the extent possible the people in government do the things we like and not the things they like.
I don’t get the impression Krugman is challenging that. He just doesn’t like one group of people getting what they like relative to another group of people.
And he kind of has a point. If I had to rank a poor family getting what they want/need within the confines of constitutional democracy and a rich family getting what they want/need within the confines of constitutional democracy, I think I’d prioritize the former.
Criticizing people who prioritize the latter doesn’t seem to be inconsistent to me. It just means that I happen to have an opinion on the quality of people’s interests. I’m allowed to have an opinion on that aren’t I? Isn’t Krugman?
It’s not inconsistent unless you think that everyone needs to value and respect everyone else’s preferences equally. Do you think that? I don’t. There are lots of peoples’ preferences that I don’t have much respect for.
You’re right. I erred. Here’s a better epitome of PK:
“Those wall street toads backed Romeny ’cause he bribed ‘em, and being bribed voters is despicable. Know what’s even more despicable? Not liking the way young voters voted for Obama just because he gave them stuff.”
I apologize for my confusion!
Hmmm, not much of an improvement I think.
This would be better:
“Presidents give voters what they want – that’s their job. Those Wall Street toads want the wrong stuff, so I’m gonna complain about how its wrong”.
Krugman-to-English is always a challenge.
When you start dreaming IS-LM curves you know you’re really starting to get it.
No that’s not the problem. It’s the technical jargon. ‘Conservative’ actually means ‘Republican’ and ‘Republican’ actually means ‘Racist’. To a laymen these things are confusing.
“Presidents give voters what they want – that’s their job.”
I agree that Krugman thinks this way but of course that IS NOT a Presidents job. Presidents are supposed to faithfully execute their constitutional duties which in theory are strictly circumscribed by the constitution itself. What Krugman is really saying is that pandering to narrowly self interested and unenlightened voters by promising them free shit is what the President is supposed to do. This is an unsurprising insight into Krugmans degenerate world view.
To quote Bastiat “Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else”. It’s sad that people like you and your hero Kruggy think this is the way it ought to be.
Dyspeptic –
If you’re one of those readers that requires that I go to lengths of endlessly qualify with understood points like “within the confines of the Constitution”, etc. then you’re better off not reading my comments because you’re going to misinterpret all of them.
If you think Krugman is only advocating things “within the confines of the Constitution”, then everyone is better off not reading your comments.
Remember I wrote “Constitution”, not “imaginary libertarian wish list that Ron Paul talks about”.
Wow, the Constitution seems to be a sore spot for you.
For you next trick you will explain how you can believe:
(1) People choosing to vote themselves goods and services (and cash) paid for by other people is Constitutional.
and
(2) Dyspeptic’s claim that “What Krugman is really saying is that pandering to narrowly self interested and unenlightened voters by promising them free shit is what the President is supposed to do” is somehow inconsistent with your views as stated (and qualified) here.
Equivicating over Constitutionality doesn’t save you.
DK:
Remember I wrote “Constitution”, not “imaginary libertarian wish list that Ron Paul talks about”
You say that like each are not mirror images of the other.
Ron Paul’s “wish list” is more constitutional than any other politician.
So MF, you’re saying Ron Paul has the constitution exactly backwards?
Precisely.
If Ron Paul says “no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”
then the Constitution actually says:
“sʇqǝp ɟo ʇuǝɯʎɐd uı ɹǝpuǝʇ ɐ uıoɔ ɹǝʌןıs puɐ pןob ʇnq buıɥʇ ʎuɐ ǝʞɐɯ ؛ʇıpǝɹɔ ɟo sןןıq ʇıɯǝ ؛ʎǝuoɯ uıoɔ ؛ןɐsıɹdǝɹ puɐ ǝnbɹɐɯ ɟo sɹǝʇʇǝן ʇuɐɹb ؛uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟuoɔ ɹo ‘ǝɔuɐıןןɐ ‘ʎʇɐǝɹʇ ʎuɐ oʇuı ɹǝʇuǝ ןןɐɥs ǝʇɐʇs ou”
Very nice! But I detect more spin than reflection in your comments …
I can’t type in mirrorish.
Although I heard it’s a dialect similar to your mother tongue gibberish.
I assume it’s easier for those who see the world the way you do to read it that way?
This is too much fun. Make me stop Daniel!!
You mean seeing the world in a non-gibberish way?
You’re right, it is easier.
That doesn’t really work, because Wall Street toads would have gotten what they wanted if Romney was elected.
You can’t make an exogenous judgment of right stuff and wrong stuff when it comes to the voters who each want what they want.
PK is saying that because the toads lost, it was a “bad move” to support the person they wanted.
How can you not see the inconsistency here? It’s pretty obvious.
re: “You can’t make an exogenous judgment of right stuff and wrong stuff when it comes to the voters who each want what they want.”
wtf are you talking about? Of course you can. Right and wrong isn’t validated by a vote or by the fact that someone thinks it’s right or wrong. We aren’t beholden to votes or the opinions of others in assessing right and wrong.
re: “PK is saying that because the toads lost, it was a “bad move” to support the person they wanted.”
Read the post. “Bad move” as in “not very well thought out or strategic” or “going to bite you in the ass later” or “a bet on the wrong horse”.
Not quite. “Bad move” was a victory dance. Taunting. Closer to “Vengeance is mine I will repay” than strategic advice from Sun-Tzu.
wtf are you talking about? Of course you can. Right and wrong isn’t validated by a vote or by the fact that someone thinks it’s right or wrong. We aren’t beholden to votes or the opinions of others in assessing right and wrong.
I don’t mean you aren’t physically capable of saying as much. I mean you can’t say as much and be consistent with what PK said.
Read the post. “Bad move” as in “not very well thought out or strategic” or “going to bite you in the ass later” or “a bet on the wrong horse”.
No, you read the post. It’s “bad move” as in “going to bite you later”, not “badly thought out or not strategic.”
How in the world can it be a bad strategy to support the candidate you want to win? It makes no sense.
Either Obama wins or Romney wins. If Romney lost, then would PK have said to the liberal seniors on SS “bad move guys!”?
Don’t be ridiculous. Even Ken B gets this one.
It’s “bad move” as in “going to bite you later”, not “badly thought out or not strategic.”
But those are the same thing here, MF. Krugman (and Daniel) are saying it wasn’t strategic of them to support Romney, *because* now it will bite them in the ass. That’s why it’s not strategic, see? (Or it’s an extra reason, beyond the policies that would happen regardless of their support.)
That’s fair (see my comment below).
I think it was a strategic comment as well – they bet on the wrong horse and now the Dems are going to be more vindictive. But I certainly agree it was a taunt too.
After all – isn’t taunting a big component of Democrats being more vindictive?
DK wrote:
Read the post. “Bad move” as in “not very well thought out or strategic” or “going to bite you in the ass later” or “a bet on the wrong horse”.
Right, so now when you say, “This is why we love democracy, because everyone gets to vote for what he wants. Yay!” you are contradicting what you just said about Krugman. If Romney had won and then gutted ObamaCare (in an alternative universe where Romney actually was a conservative), and then I had a post saying, “You guys should’ve known better than to vote for Obama, now it’s going to bite you in the ass, maybe Romney would’ve only cut half your benefits if you hadn’t been sassy to him,” I don’t think you would say, “Good post Bob! This is why we love democracy! Yay!”
Bob –
You seem to want to argue that strategic voting and voting your interests can’t coexist.
I’m not willing to argue that. That doesn’t seem right.
Certainly you can vote for Romney without bellyaching about alleged class warfare, right? There’s a way of doing it without pissing off Democrats.
Anyway, I think strategic voting and voting your interest coexist – so I’m not sure why there is a contradiction here. By all means, vote your interest, but:
1. If you shoot yourself in the foot you will be taunted for shooting yourself in the foot, and
2. If you have crappy goals you will be told they are crappy goals.
Right?
To bring it back to my other extreme example:
If there were trade unionists voted for Hitler because they were anti-Semitic, I would:
1. Tell them they’re dumb-asses that really bet on the wrong anti-Semite, and
2. Have really crappy ideals that they are voting on.
And I will criticize them for that WITHOUT rejecting the value in a democratic Germany (ideally with less Schmidtian constitutionalism).
“I’m not willing to argue that. That doesn’t seem right.”
OK Bartleby step away from the keyboard. The real Daniel *never* has problems arguing things that don’t seem right.
DK:
Again you are interjecting other people’s value judgments of what constitutes “crappy goals”, even though the only relevant value judgments in this particular discussion are those of the Wall Street toads.
PK didn’t say that the rich toads on Wall Street made a “bad move” in the sense of pursuing some sort of objectively bad goal like lower taxes, or supporting Romney, or what have you.
He said that it was a bad move because they are going to get it good and hard because they didn’t support Obama in the campaign and jumped ship to Romney. That nice little mention of Elizabeth Warren at the end, who is notorious for being anti-Wall Street, makes this clear.
Again, how is it a bad strategic move to have supported a candidate who didn’t win? What difference does it make? If they instead poured their money into Obama’s campaign, they would be no better off, because he would have won by an even larger margin anyway.
“Bad move” is a taunt, backed by an implicit threat. It has nothing to do with sterile “strategy”.
And if you don’t think that, what the hell is the argument about?
That you are missing one of Krugman’s two faces on this issue.
Daniel he said “Bad move guys.” to the Wall Street toadies. He was criticizing them for backing somebody based on what they thought they could get out of it.
If Romney had won Krugman certainly wouldn’t have said to uninsured Obama voters, “Bad move guys.”
And “Bad move guys” wasn’t commiseration. It was “in your face!” It was criticism not disapassionate analysis.
Man I type worse then M_F thinks.
If you’re anywhere near how I think, then I would say that’s an unjustified self-pat on your own back.
The smoking gun here Daniel: Krugman titled that post (about the toadies) “Wall Street’s Bad Investment Decision.” (Might not be exact wording, but I think it is.) He was criticizing them for their miscalculation of political realities and who was going to be in power, not because they supported a policy that wasn’t good for the General Welfare.
Right that was the point of that post.
But you seem like you think there’s some contradiction that he is endorsing other people voting for what they want.
Like I said in my original comment – maybe I’m badly misunderstanding the claim. Yes, I think here you are accurately characterizing Krugman’s other post with this comment. But you seem to think there’s something screwy in him acknowledging the point that we like democracy because it gets voters what they want. I don’t see all that much screwy about the claim. But I might be very confused.
Right that was the point of that post.
But you seem like you think there’s some contradiction that he is endorsing other people voting for what they want.
So Daniel:
(1) You agree Krugman was criticizing Romney backers for voting for what they wanted.
(2) You agree Krugman was endorsing Obama backers for voting for what they wanted.
(3) You see no contradiction here.
The complete comments of Daniel Kuehn, Abridged</a
Sorry DK, couldn’t resist. You know I like your stuff.
I’m starting to develop empathy for MF!
Don’t worry, my skin is thicker than your skull.
Awesome.
I’m agreeing with you so much in this thread Bob I half expect Landsburg to show up and accuse me of having a man-crush on you.
(That show is really worth seeing btw. Hilarious and brilliantly clever.)
LOL
No I don’t agree Krugman was criticizing Romney voters for voting what they wanted. I’ve been saying this whole thread that that’s what we like about democracy.
He’s been criticizing Romney voters for wanting crappy things, and acknowledging that Obama voters want decent things. I don’t see why he’s obligated to have the same reaction to what these people want.
And in that particular quote, of course, he’s trying to argue that Wall St. made life harder for itself by doing that.
DK wrote:
No I don’t agree Krugman was criticizing Romney voters for voting what they wanted. I’ve been saying this whole thread that that’s what we like about democracy.
He’s been criticizing Romney voters for wanting crappy things…
Then why did he title his blog post “Bad Investment”? If I put $100 in a tobacco company and then earn $1,000, it’s not a bad investment. You can criticize me for promoting socially undesirable things, but it’s not a bad investment.
But if I put $100 in a tobacco company and then get $50 back, that’s a bad investment. Someone who says to me, “Bad investment guy,” is criticizing my forecasting ability.
re: “But if I put $100 in a tobacco company and then get $50 back, that’s a bad investment. Someone who says to me, “Bad investment guy,” is criticizing my forecasting ability.”
Right.
This is how I have been interpreting that particular post the whole time, is it not?
Krugman has not restricted himself to a single criticism of rich Romney supporters, has he? I don’t get what your issue is. I’ve been saying all along this is how he meant “bad move”. Why are you thinking you need to spell that out?
Krugman has not restricted himself to a single criticism of rich Romney supporters, has he?
AHEM
“The story, as you may recall, is that the financial industry — having brought both itself and the rest of the world to the edge of disaster — was bailed out by taxpayers. Yet far from being grateful, top financial types were furious at Obama for occasionally hinting that some of them might have misbehaved a bit. And investment bankers — who normally lean Democratic — went overwhelmingly to the other side, pouring cash into Mitt Romney’s coffers in the no doubt correct expectation that a Romney administration would dismantle financial reform and treat their wealth with the adulation they believe to be their birthright.
But Romney lost and Obama won.”
Top financial types, DK.
Hence my pro-Jews-in-ovens constituency in the German electorate point, Bob!
We don’t criticize those people for voting their hearts and minds.
We criticize them for having really crappy, hateful, objectionable hearts and minds!
That’s an extreme example, of course – it’s just meant to be illustrative. The problem is not democracy in Germany. The problems is anti-Semitism (and maybe a few leaks in the constitutional machinery too, of course)!!
“We don’t criticize those people for voting their hearts and minds.”
I do. Voting is violence – putting in a choice for one person’s opinions to rule over other people by force.
I don’t see the failed “strategy” of the Wall Street types here. Either they support Romney, who promised to stop people stealing from them and was probably going to lose, or they supported Obama, who promised to steal more from them to pay for free goodies like healthcare.
It was basically lose-lose.
You were not in the “we” I had in mind.
Bob, my take is that Krugman thinks the difference between Wall Street voting for what they want and people voting for Medicare is that Wall Street is also voting with their dollars and this is perceived to buy them influence.
Perhaps Krugman is mistaken in this view or perhaps AARP or other groups are also voting with their dollars and buying influence but I’d say he’s saying Wall Street made a bad bet as opposed to simply a bad vote.
Perhaps I’m mistaken on this too. My understanding was that in 2008 Wall Street supported Obama or at least hedged their bets by pouring money into both campaigns.
There is also the difference that Medicare at least in theory is a program that will exist for everyone when they retire, but that Wall Street is seen as a much narrower interest group. (Both in size and in that many people don’t think the financial sector add real value to the economy.)
I think he’s saying that had Wall Street supported Obama he’d feel beholden to them in way that he supposedly won’t now. I believe he thinks Obama did feel deferential to them in his first term.
Lastly he may honestly think voting for Romney is actually not in Wall Street’s best interest even if Romney dismantles financial reform. He may even think that the financial reform in place doesn’t really serious harm them.
As far as the N-word I can’t figure out if you’re actually criticizing Krugman for “printing” it or what Crown Heights after 6 should have to do with it. Krugman shouldn’t quote Lee Atwater because you once lived in a “bad” neighborhood?
I can open it up again, but I thought he was noting that they made it so that the Congress and the White House – who were never best buds with Wall Street, but willing to help out when they are in dire straits – would come back in 2013 considerably less disposed to play nice.
Right?
Do you disagree with that assessment?
Daniel
You wander into a bad section ot town and find yourself face to face with thugs with switchblades. “Shoulda stayed on the bus” one says with a smirk. Is he JUST criticizing your transportation choices, or is he taunting you?
Taunting you. As Krugman was taunting Wall St. in the “bad move” post (the point I’ve been making this whole time.
So that’s what Krugman thinks. What does Bob say? He writes: “You know how I thought it was funny that Krugman was criticizing Wall Street types for voting for a guy who would let them keep more of their money?”. That is Bob’s characterization – not mine. I disagree with it.
Bob goes on to contrast his interpretation of Krugman “criticizing Wall Street types for voting for a guy who would let them keep more of their money” with Krugman giving the thumbs up to Obama voters voting for a guy who gives them what they want.
I am saying that Bob’s characterization is wrong. The reason why he’s fine with Obama voters voting their interests is that he thinks their interests are legitimate!
In addition to taunting Wall St. on a strategic level (“bad move”), Krugman is also known to not consider their interests as legitimate as Obama voters’ interests.
Presumably the feeling is mutual.
I really don’t know how much clearer about this I can be.
I think you’re missing that ‘taunting’ bolsters Bob’s reading. PK is criticizing not just the wisdom but the motives of the wall streeters. Aside from good policy/bad policy, *motives*.
Right. He is criticizing both the wisdom (“this is going to come back to bite you in the ass”) and the motives (“you have crappy goals”). I agree. I feel like I’ve said this several times.
Is it that you think there’s a substantial difference between:
1. “I think Wall St. is screwed up because it is motivated to enrich itself at the expense of all that is sacred” . and
2. “I think Wall St. is screwed up because it supports policies that enrich Wall St. at the expense of all that is sacred”?
Because I don’t see too much difference between the two.
If you want, I am happy to clarify that I think Krugman has criticisms about the wisdom, motives, and policies of Wall St. But I really don’t think the distinction between the last two is a necessary one.
You’re cherry picking quotes.
Murphy said (linked article to “I thought it was funny”):
“Krugman is simultaneously ridiculing Wall Street guys for pouting just because Obama doesn’t fawn over them–in other posts he calls it “hey ma he’s looking at me funny!”–and then goes on to say that because Obama won, these rich Wall Street guys are going to get hit.”
I don’t think he made a great case that it was a “bad move”. It wasn’t a terrible case, but it wasn’t a great case either. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that I think everything Krugman utters is sheer brilliance. My record clearly shows otherwise.
He had a dumbass post on race and the election up recently too, if you want another criticism of him from me.
Hey, don’t get me wrong, I stopped believing, a while ago actually, that you 100% always agree with everything PK says. I think that’s water under the bridge, for me at least. So please understand that from my perspective, every time you mention “I don’t always agree with PK”, it sort of looks like a case of unsolicited denials of non-existent accusations, which usually signals some sort of guilt and thus some, however small, acceptance of it. Not saying that is the case, it just looks like it from my perspective, because I don’t actually think what you believe I think.
At any rate, since everyone seems to agree that the “bad move guys” was a taunt, then I think Murphy has a good point when he said:
“Try going through Krugman’s post, switching Obama and Romney, and replacing “Masters of the Universe” with “poor seniors dependent on Medicare.” Oh, you fools supported Obama because you were afraid of draconian cuts to entitlements?! Ha ha, now we’re unleashing Paul Ryan on you. Bad move, gramps.”
It is pretty certain that PK would have thought this would be a jerk move. But that’s what he’s doing himself. That’s all.
Bob, I didn’t read the whole comment thread, but it seems to me that in the old post, Krugman was taunting Wall St. for betting on a losing horse, i.e. for making a move that they thought was in their best interest but in reality wasn’t in their own best interest, because Romeny lost and now Democrats will be unrestrained in going after them, since they’re not beholden to Wall St. contributions. In this post, Krguman is endorsing people who voted for what was actually in their own best interests, because Obama won and thus he will help them. So I see absolutely no contradiction between this too posts.
But as it happens, I actually DO think that Krugman has contradicted himself in his new post, because of this old post where he explicitly criticizes voting based on self-interest:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/i-do-not-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-means-hypocrisy-edition/
He says “So to say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t: supporting policies that are to your personal financial disadvantage isn’t hypocrisy — it’s civic virtue!”