When newspapers make mistakes or false accusations, they publish corrections. That’s not always the case with bloggers, however. And sometimes it seems the more prominent the blogger, the less likely a correction will be made.
A recent example comes from noted economist Paul Krugman. . .
I think that Adler is wrong to frame this in terms of newspapers vs. blogs. Krugman does not limit his remorseless slander to blogs.
Everything written by, for, or against Krugman over the past 15 years is a waste of time. That includes this post as well as Adler’s. It includes various attempts by Henderson, Cowen, and Sumner to engage with Krugman. They try to treat him as if he had some sense of decency. Instead, he is Joe McCarthy with a Nobel Prize.
I don’t think this post is one that speaks to people on the other (Krugman’s) side and that tries to open their minds. Not that there’s anything wrong with it!
Yes it does. Have you ever talked to them?
If you treat opinion as fact, you will either become very unhappy or listen only to those who tell you want you want.
Arnold, if you are abandoning your efforts to be charitable, that’s fine — after all, it’s very difficult and it probably isn’t worth the effort. But if that’s the case, you should change the tagline of your site.
I should also say, I come here specifically to not read posts like the one above. I can read those — or their inverse — practically anywhere else.
Arnold, people just can’t get it.
Krugman is a very special case, and no, you cant. Did you read any of my comments the last time it came up? Which was like the first time in YEARS. Years. YEARS!!!!
The second paragraph is directed at the commenter.
And no, you can’t.
What you mean, commenter, is you can feel the same. But you didn’t even grok his actual post.
And by the way, how dare you?
You want to know what the real analysis is? The other victims of PK bullying may be naively or intentionally playing a roll of shocked (shocked!) victim by repeatedly exploiting PK for the click-bait.
Arnold never does this. In fact, did you even look at the title? Did you read the post where Arnold says don’t even engage and that this post is the exception that proves the rule?
And besides ALL that, rule #1 of dealing with bullying is: Determine who is the victim, and give them the benefit of the doubt. How dare anyone to come down on Arnold when EVERY sentence of PK is dripping with smear.
PK makes people stupider.
The tagline reads “taking the most charitable view of those who disagree.”
It doesn’t read ignoring evidence of bad behavior to do that. At some point, the most charitable view of someone could be a negative view.
We don’t even have to say “bad” behavior. Just consistent.
As someone who used to selectively read Krugman articles many years ago, I have to agree with what you said. I don’t know Krugman’s mind better than anyone else, but if you asked me to think up plausible theories for why his writing today is such garbage – especially compared to the creative, clear, well considered articles he wrote decades ago – I can’t think of any theories that are very complimentary.
My actual belief is that Krugman, perhaps due to having won his Nobel prize, no longer worries about intellectual rigor. He used to have it, especially by the standards of opinion columnists. I guess it’s something he’s very capable of, but only if pressured into it by his worries about how others would take it. Now he has given into a more base nature that all of us carry, i.e., the urge to wallow in the mire of politics and scoring points against one’s “political enemies.”
Krugman’s articles from the 90s about e.g. foreign trade are still to be recommended. His articles on other subjects were not as reliably brilliant, but still often were standouts from the usual level of discourse. But, if there is value in anything he wrote since then, it is probably not worth wading through the stinky political muck to find it.
Tyler Cowen recently wrote:
Yes, and it’s also true for ‘nastier’. Unless a post of theirs has been recommended to me by a trusted curator or gatekeeper, I no longer pay attention to DeLong, Krugman, and the whole company of their groupies in the econoblogosphere. They are like anti-Timothy Taylors (or anti-Klings) and never miss a change to go out of their way to personally insult anyone who doesn’t agree.
Even when those chances don’t actually exist!
“Instead, he is Joe McCarthy with a Nobel Prize.”
I had basically the same thought, except you are too charitable comparing him to McCarthy.
How did I know this article would be about the Cato post I clicked on randomly for no reason other than Cato in Krugman’s title caught my eye? Does anyone want my full critique of Krugman on this? Here is a,summary, he basically takes a Journal Article Development He’ll story, that every researcher has one of, and Krugman knows this, as an in to smear Cato. Turns out even the story wasn’t even true.
Let’s start a pool on how, if he does at all, Krugman self-cogratulatingly backs out if it. Put me down for “Cato is even worse than I said they were…”
And why TF, btw, would Cato “suppress” an article about money? It is not even wrong, it is insanity.
” Update: Glasner has retracted, saying he got his facts wrong. Unfortunate. It has no bearing on what I wrote, however.
As for Cato and Social Security…I’m not surprised that they gave up, but it really happened.”
Doesn’t somebody owe me some money or have to wear a funny hat or something?
For those still slow on the up-take…sorry, that’s not so charitable, but it’s really on you…Krugman’s nefariousness cannot be understated. Sniping from the side that creates terms like homophobic and xenophobic, (and “choice!”) not only is he smearing Cato as somehow lying by using more palatable words like “choice” over privatization, I’d bet dollars to donuts the he himself probably played a part in demonizing the word “privatization.”