Thursday, February 4, 2021

Paul Krugman's Desperate Attempt to Remain Relevant

It is getting bad for New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. 

No one is paying attention to him. 

Rob Blackie Digital Strategy recently completed a study that included a list of economists being followed (on Twitter) by Biden advisers.

Economists Robert Reich, Jared Bernstein, Jason Furman and Justin  Wolfers made the list. Krugman did not. 

Yes, Reich made it but not Krugman.

Since that report, it appears Krugman has gone off the rails.

Krugman spent most of 2019-20 attacking Stephanie Kelton's crazed idea that deficits don't matter. Kelton's ideas were a sound target to go after.

But now that Biden is following in the footsteps of Donald Trump and calling for trillions of dollars in government spending, Krugman is now supporting the deficits don't matter theme.

In the clip below, he supports an added $1.9 trillion in deficit spending and says "We can afford them, so why not do them?”


Afford them? The government has no money to do this. It is all about printing money out of thin air to support the spending. 

This is right out of Kelton's playbook, only she sees the massive $1.9 trillion advocated by Krugman as a floor. In other words, Krugman and Kelton are singing from the same hymn book just as different volumes.

But Krugman knows better. In his text book, Macroeconomics, written with his wife, Robin Williams, they warn about deficits:
Today's deficits, by increasing the government's debt, place financial pressure on future budgets. The impact of current deficits on future budgets is straight forward... 
Some may ask why can't a government that is in trouble borrowing just print money to pay its bills? Yes, it can if it has its own currency...but printing money to pay the government's bills can lead to another problem: inflation. In fact, budget problems are the main cause of very severe inflation.

If you need to brush up, Paul, this is on page 397 of the third edition of your text.



  1. Not sure which is better or which is worse. The fact that Kugman is becoming insignificant is good for the entire world. He is a cancer on rational thought and intellectual debate.
    That said the list of those supposedly advising the Interloper in Chief is pretty sad. We should I suppose take heart in the fact that is might take any of them a bit of time to develop the position Krugman once had so that is good. Also Kelton lacks the fancy position in the Ivy League which is good since she might be the craziest of them all.
    On that note there seems to be a welcomed lack of noise from one Thomas Piketty. Perhaps his close reads 14:57 and counting? One should hope that true.

  2. Paul Krugman is an economic house negro on this government plantation that we all find ourselves on. The awarding of the Nobel Prize merely signified his promotion from working in the fields to working in the house, where his job now is to keep all the slaves in the field in line.

  3. Mr. Wenzel, I cringe whenever someone refers to Robert Reich as an "economist." If I'm wrong, please educate me, but according to Wikipedia, who also labels him an "economist" (but I expect that from them) Reich studied PPE (Politics, Philosophy, and Economics) at Oxford. After reading about PPE at this link:,_politics_and_economics I'm skeptical that someone with this degree should be considered an economist.