Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Paul Krugman Explains Why He Feels Comfortable Making Things Up in His Columns and Posts

He writes:
A while back I worried that the Obama administration actually believed in pundit fantasies, those elaborate psychodramas supposedly going on in voters’ minds as they contemplate whether Obama has reached out enough to the center or whatever. My point wasn’t that voters are stupid; it was that people have lives, they aren’t following politics at all closely, and they vote based on broad perceptions of where politicians stand, not on the kind of thing that pundits obsess about.
At this point the Obamians seem to have learned better. But I couldn’t resist flagging a couple of examples of what voters really know. First, Public Policy Polling found that 39 percent of voters have a view, pro or con, about Simpson-Bowles. Not bad, you might think. But a quarter of voters also had views on Panetta-Burns, a plan that as it happens doesn’t exist.
I doubt Krugman would view this general public lack of knowledge to just politics. He surely thinks the same thing about financial and economic knowledge. So I guess that explains this.


  1. I don't doubt you are right about Krugman use of public ignorance, but in this case, Krugman is right about the electorate.

    Most people -- even those who are WAY more connected than the average citizen -- make their opinions based on extremely thin reasoning. That's why idiotic phrases like "they hate us for our freedom" work so well. To have a reasonable grasp on the economic and moral underpinnings of things we take for granted (even if we still study every day) take years of effort (not full time, of course) -- and there's very little personal payback for the effort unless it happens to coincide with our jobs. You have to be passionate about freedom (or authoritarianism) to put in that amount of effort for so little payback; most people are not.

    Most people start in a direction they learn from their parents and from government schools. For the rest of their lives they look for ways to rationalize what they have believed since childhood without having to place much effort into the rationalization. We all know our philosophy is not going to be taught in a government schools, and most parents -- having been indoctrinated that big government is our friend, or just not caring -- don't do anything to change their children's attitude. So, most people just trog through life using the conventional wisdom of their friends to make their decisions.

    And then they vote....

  2. I suppose in his opinion we should just leave all this difficult, complicated work to our betters?

    Krugman inadvertently makes a great case for voluntaryism to those who get it.

  3. You are smoking crack, and a lying sack of shit. :-(
    That is NOT what he said, you ignorant lying empty sack of
    Roger Ailes balls. I know sucking off Charles Krauthammer
    is your ultimate fantasy, but nigger, please, get over yourself
    and your hyperbolic delusional fantasies and, i dunno,
    actually quote someone in context, you rotting piece of shit.

    Oh, I guess this is all about how your side got your ASS BEATDOWN
    in the last election, and you're still not done crying about it.
    Go ahead, have your good cry, I will wait.

    1. I know. I laughed too. Obviously this n!&&^ never read past the first line, or he would see that this site is more pro-black and anti-racist than any of his plantation sites like NBCBSFox that just spew shit.

      The only system that will allow whites, blacks, Muslims, gays, atheists, etc and etc. to live in peace is the one that Wenzel preaches each day.

      But no lesbians. They are mean.

  4. Peter Schiff was very, very, very wrong about inflation and hyperinflation in 2008 and 2009 and really still today. Paul Krugman was actually quite correct if you follow what he was actually talking about. Krugman is maybe even as hyperbolic as Schiff, so in that sense they are very similar... except Krugman is actually an excellent economist and Schiff is a ideological hack.