03 Jan 2018

Krugman vs. Krugman

Krugman 5 Comments

I was naughty on Twitter and posted these side-by-side… (The first has no time-stamp but it’s from January 2, 2018.)


5 Responses to “Krugman vs. Krugman”

  1. Bob Roddis says:

    I suspect that perhaps Krugman simply knows his audience. “Progressives” these days will believe ANYTHING. Krugman’s writings may be nothing more than a cynical appeal to a large horde of neurotic know-nothings. Supplying even a small does of reality to those people would probably result in Krugman being branded a Nazi White Supremacist Neo-Confederate.

    Of course, he might actually believe what he writes.

    • Anonymous says:

      Progressive as defined by the dictionary is an incredibly vague term that could probably include anyone dissatisfied with the status quo in any significant way. Progressive as used by libertarians is simply an insult used to imply that because a person who has one view libertarians classify as leftist (e.g. opposing slavery), they must be leftist (as defined by libertarians) in every other way too (e.g. supporting Hillary). Nevermind that Hillary probably does not meet the dictionary definition of a progressive, being very much in line with the status quo in most respects that really matter. And nevermind that Hillary has likely helped to increase the amount of slavery in the world.

  2. RPLong says:

    This one seems quite slippery the more I look at it. Krugman could get off on a couple of technicalities here: The chosen definition of “regulation” (since zoning is usually implemented through by-laws), and the chosen definition of “investment” (since one could conceivably claim that a home purchase is not really “investment” in the the sense of GDP accounting).

    • Anonymous says:

      Regulation could mean anything from a prohibition against using slave labor to a requirement that all workers submit to having tracking devices inserted into them. Regulations might be enforced from anything as mild as a newpaper shaming or Amish shunning to anything as severe as torture or the death penalty. It’s ridiculous to make generalizations about regulations.

      Also, deterring investment in companies that use slave labor (without making meaningful efforts to avoid doing so) would be a good thing.

  3. Khodge says:

    He says that businesses “SAY” that regs don’t deter investments but does he ever offer evidence that he’s ever actually talked to a businessman? A real person running a real business who has tried to work with a building commission to build something that may not have even been built because of regulators?

    Besides which, there are two parts to the story: (1) liberal policy in TX attracting businesses; (2) illiberal policy in CA/NY businesses either out of town or out of business..

Leave a Reply