Friday, April 16, 2021

Krugman Puts Out a Hit Piece on Andrew Yang

Paul Krugman receiving the Nobel Prize

Paul Krugman has turned his evil pen on new York City mayoral candidate Andrew Yang. There are very few that deserve the Krugman jab but Yang is one of them.

For those who read only the first two or three of paragraphs of  New York Times commentaries, it doesn't often get much better than this oozing from Krugman's pen:

Will Andrew Yang, the current front-runner, become New York City’s next mayor? If he wins, would he be any good at the job? I have no idea, although I’m skeptical about the latter.
My guess is that the mayoral office needs an effective political brawler, not an intellectual, and Yang, who has never held office, owes his prominence largely to his reputation as a thought leader, someone with big ideas about economics and policy.
What I do know is that Yang’s big ideas are demonstrably wrong. Shouldn’t that be cause for concern?

For the first time ever, I really hope Krugman doesn't get ink blots on his hands and shirt.

But Krugman didn't stop with the introduction, he went on to specifically smash Yang's aggressive support for a universal basic income:

Yang’s claim to fame is his argument that we’re facing social and economic crises because rapid automation is destroying good jobs and that the solution is universal basic income — a monthly check of $1,000 to every American adult. Many people find that argument persuasive, and one can imagine a world in which both Yang’s diagnosis and his prescription would be right.

But that’s not the world we’re living in now, and there’s little indication that it’s where we’re going any time soon..

For what it’s worth, my guess is that Yang started preaching the dangers of automation without ever having looked at economic data; it was a story too good to check..

And then this:

 But even if we don’t think Yang is right about the problem, what about his solution? Is his universal basic income proposal a good idea?

No, it isn’t. It’s both too expensive to be sustainable without a very large tax increase and inadequate for Americans who really need help. I’ve done the math.

First, we really would be talking about a lot of money. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan gave most adults a one-time $1,400 payment, at a cost of $411 billion...

But the Yang proposal to pay $12,000 a year would cost more than eight times as much every year — well over $3 trillion a year, in perpetuity. 

I have eliminated the shaky arguments that Krugman makes in the column but this takedown of Yang was necessary by someone at the Queer Black Lady and I am glad Krugman stepped to the plate. 



  1. If Yang were worried about unemployment he wouldn't support the lolbertarian idea of open borders. Of course flooding the country with more third worlders, eliminating social cohesion and creating a permanent underclass is Wenzel's wet dream.

  2. It's really weird to hear Krugman warn about high taxes and spending increases almost equivalent to the entire Federal budget. I thought one of the rules of Progressivism was you don't acknowledge any limits on government spending.