Okay, so P-Kroog is the most pompous, least self-aware, most earnestly immune from self-doubt person in journalism today. (Olbermann is a bigger a-hole, but he has some ironic self-awareness).
Still, I refuse to believe that this P-Kroog critique of how elites misled policy, and blamed voters, is anything but satire. Surely even P-Kroog had to recognize that he is really talking about himself.
Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.
So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn’t just self-serving, it’s dead wrong.
The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.
He's got to realize that's irony, right? He's GOT to.
(Nod to Angry Alex)
8 comments:
Nah, this is Krugman we are talking about. He lacks any sense whatsoever of irony, and he actually believes he is one of "us", and not one of the misguided policy elites.
Fortunately, not too many serious people actually listen to Krugman, so he is relatively harmless.
Have you ever read "Politicians Don't Pander"? His assertion doesn't seem too off to me.
"Most pompous man on earth"? Oh, Mungo, now you've given him something else to be smug about.
I don't claim to know P-Kroog, but I sense no irony or self awareness in his writing.
The fact you are criticizing his "pompousness" (is that a word?) rather than the economic claims in the article tells me Krugman must be right on. It's called changing the focus. Instead of debating the actual points in the article you switch the focus to discussing the tone of the article. Very clevor... very clevor indeed...
Speaking of going ad hominem, what does "clevor" mean? And it's not just a typo. You wrote it twice!
Krugman's actual points? He wants spending. Spending beyond levels ever seen. It is his panacea for all economic ills. His reasoning is rates are still low so there is no real fear of a inflation or a real disaster from this spending spree that he is not only advocates, but wants to take to new levels. If you want to know why he is wrong, read the Atlantic piece on Bill Gross this month. You are right, there is no need to talk about whether or not he is pompous. That part is factual. So is the fact he is wrong....
I am terrible at spelling!!! I used to be just bad then spell check came about and now I am completely useless without it!
I sometimes read Krugman as I jump from Real Clear Markets, thinking that it's useful to get another perspective even if it's so terrible. Kinda like doing missionary work in some war-torn country. But each time I do, I'm astounded that this man has a job, even as an "economist" for a declining busines like the NYT.
And then I'm immediately reminded of WWF from my youth. Remember how you always had to have the jacka** evil wrestler that everybody despised, because if you didn't, no one would watch? And as you got older, you were like, "Of course!" Because someone has to get beat down in the end, even if was wrestle-mania until he gets "the sleeper."
But then I read the comments from his minions and I'm thinking, "Either these guys at the NYT have a ton of interns stoking this, or this country is really #^*ed.." And I jump back to serious journalism wondering, "Is Krugman f-ing with us, or could this guy really be serious?" and my whole day is shot....
Post a Comment