Thursday, February 19, 2015

Paul Krugman's Vicious Swipe at Stephen Moore

Krugman writes at NYT:
Think about Heritage: It’s immensely wealthy, and could surely afford to hire a technically competent right-wing hack. The Wall Street Journal, similarly, could have attracted someone much less likely to trip over his own intellectual shoelaces. Again, the problem isn’t even that Moore got the macroeconomics of recent years all wrong, although he did; it’s the inability to write without making embarrassing mistakes.

So why is he there (and he’s not alone — there are some other incompetent hacks at Heritage)?

I suspect that the incompetence is actually desirable at some level — a smart hack might turn honest, or something, But it’s remarkable.
The article that Krugman is referring to is this one by Moore: Affordable care that isn’t affordable. It looks pretty sound to me despite that Krugman, and Krugman's-referenced Jonathan Chait column , claim otherwise.

I don't agree with Moore's view, in his comment, that "national defense outlays [are]the most important function of government." (I am more in line with Hoppe's view on national defense.) But\, his points on Obamacare are about the here and now, and what is going on with government healthcare spending at present. Not about CBO projections into the year 2020, which is where Chait wants to take Moore's point, although Moore doesn't go there.

But besides all this, what's all the viciousness about on a pretty legitimate argument from Moore. This isn't an ad hominem, it's more like an impetum in ascia.



  1. Dammnnnnnnnn....made me google translate "axe attack". I wish I would have studied Latin.

  2. I thought it meant hatchet job

  3. The Krugman is desperate. Can't debate logic and facts resorts to name calling. Not surprising.

  4. Moore's "facts" are demonstrably, ridiculously untrue, which Chait and Krugman go to great lengths to refute with sound, verifiable sources. If anyone is defying logic, it is Moore and Heritage, not Krugman and Chait.

    1. If you honestly believe that what Robert posted above from Krugman's article is an example of a well laid out logical argument, then I think its safe to say there is no point arguing with you.

      Krugman has become an entertainer and writes what his audience wants to read. I say that because often is the case where Krugman will contradict himself sometimes only months apart. That happens because his objective is to write what people want to read at the time his article comes out and he knows that his audience does not care if he's contradicting himself or making an intellectually dishonest argument devoid of any kind of logic. They like the attack and he's willing to stoop to that level to give it to them. I guess you could call him the left's educated version of Limbaugh.

    2. If you honestly believe that what is laid out above constitutes the entirety of Krugman's article, then I think it is safe to say there is no point arguing with you.

    3. Please refer to the second paragraph, which I believe may describe you.

  5. Wait a second, Paul Krugman is now calling other people "incompetent hacks?" Reality has officially jumped the shark.