Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Krugman Denies Google + Account

Paul Krugman writes this morning:
Well, this is interesting. I hear that the not-so-good people at National Review are attacking me over something I said on my Google+ page. Except, I don’t have a Google+ page.
Which means he did not say that if yesterday's Northeeast earthquake had caused more damage it would have been better for the economy. HOWEVER, he has said such about other events. For those of you that didn't listen to the broken window video on my earlier post on Krugman and the earthquake, I urge you to at least listen to the first few seconds of the video.

The only reason I posted a reference to the Google +  Krugman comment (which Krugman now states is not his) is that it is completely in line with his thinking on disasters, death and damage. You will see what I mean when you listen to the video. Krugman won't be able to deny these comments.

The video is here.

Ask yourself, how is Krugman's shocking comments on these events different from wanting more damage from an earthquake.


  1. Interesting. Must have been an imposter as I've been following Krugman on Google+ for weeks.

  2. He says "It's not my account"... But not "It's not my OPINION."

    Because we all know that's EXACTLY what and how he thinks.

  3. It was him, the lying slimeball.

  4. If it was a fake, it was a VERY VERY good fake. It had personal pictures, had Krug follow only a few people that Krug *would* follow, posted links to his articles, and said very Krug-like things.

    His earthquake post was the only one, to my knowledge, that could be considered 'absurd' by Krugman standards. I know he believes in the broken window fallacy, but I was in disbelief that he would lament that the earthquake wasn't larger.

    I'm about 70% certain it was his account, but will certainly change my mind if more evidence comes to light.

  5. "Yeah, but..." is NEVER a good rhetorical device.

  6. The account being a fake doesn't really change much as the hordes of keynesians who rushed in to defend "his" comment testify to.

  7. I don't know whether the imposter intended this, but his joke has a stroke of brilliance.

    By making the outrageous comment, he indirectly compels Krugman to respond to it, and say for the record whether or not he accepts it. The beauty is that no matter what Krugman says, it will make him look like an idiot.

    If he says he does not accept it, then he contradicts his own worldview, because the comment is exactly in line with Krugman's orthodoxy. It wasn't an advocacy, it was simply an argument of economics.

    If he says he does accept it, then he will just reconfirm what everyone already knows. That he's crazy.

    If he fails to say he rejects or accepts it, then that will insinuate that he has something to hide, which conveys the impression that he secretly accepts it and is too embarrassed to explicitly admit it.

    Since Krugman seems to imply in the NYT blog that the fake comment is "really stupid [and] outrageous," (although we can't be sure, and I bet Krugman carefully worded his column so that he doesn't explicitly say the comment is really stupid and outrageous, but at the same time denying he said it), then the imposter has succeeded in getting Krugman to contradict himself.

  8. Good analysis guys. Unfortunately they took it down, so we can't see what the Keynesian comments were defending him.

    MF can you post your analysis on my blog on this topic? I vaguely was thinking along your lines, but didn't spell it out the way you did.

  9. There's actually twitter meme going on right now called #KrugmanStimulus.

  10. My, and I suspect Krugman's, view is that space aliens stole his identity to discredit him and prevent the world from building up its space defenses and bringing prosperity to the world.

  11. "So if you see me quoted as saying something really stupid or outrageous, and it didn’t come from the Times or some other verifiable site, you should probably assume it was a fake"

    Lol. Does he really want to say something so stupid in his defense? Guess so, it's on his NYT blog..

  12. Anon @1:20,

    You should probably assume that post was a fake.

  13. It appears they took down the original but here's a screen shot captured by none other than Gonzalo Lira