Paul Krugman: "frazzled,
sleepless, depressed" -- sounds
like he should be on
Lighten up, Paul, one outa' two ain't
A Mickey Mouse coin-flip:
Krugman goes one for two
fella' would have to be a moran not to see that Paul Krugman is one, too.
In this LogoPhere Bullet List Analysis I want to 'splain why that
is, relying on Krugman's sequence of four risible post-election articles
"It really does now look like
President Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them
to recover? . . . if the question is when markets will recover, a
first-pass answer is never. " -- Paul Krugman
A few hours after this prediction by the
NYT's famous Nobel laureate went public, the DJIA closed at it's
record high, and it is still setting records and still climbing.
Dow Jones Industrial Average as of closing Nov16|16
The truth of the matter is that, contrary
to Krugman's Chicken Little poppycock, the Dow was sinking on Oct31, even as
Krugman and the NYT were predicting that
Hillary Clinton Hilton's victory was all but
certain. Between the election results showing DTDuck to be the winner and Krugman's next article on Nov11, the Dow
shot up nearly 500 points.
After claiming that the markets were
plunging and predicting they would "never" recover, when Krugman
finally got back to us he was forced to admit how deluded he is. Here's
what he spouted two days after the Dow hit
a record high and three days after DTDuck was elected:
"My own first instinct was to say
that Trumponomics would quickly provoke an immediate economic crisis,
but after a few hours’ reflection I decided that this was probably
wrong. . . Political opponents of the new regime [meaning Krugman
himself and his over-lords at the NYT] certainly shouldn’t count on
any near-term moment of obvious vindication."
"[A]fter a few hours'
reflection"??? WTF? Yeah, it was after a few hours of
watching the Dow go through the roof and reflecting on how his
Nov09 prediction of a markets-apocalypse was 180 degrees in
the wrong direction.
I mean, ya' gotta' wonder . . . here we
have a self-promoting Nobel laureate in economics who does not even
know enough about markets to predict in what direction they will go in
response to a huge perturbation like the election of a walking dildo for
president. Please forgive me my repetition of metaphors but as
I said with respect to Nate Silver, Krugman couldn't
predict when the toilet paper is going to run out if he was reaching
for the last sheet on the role.
And then Krugman, who professes to be
"intellectually honest," fails to tell us what the odds
actually are when he asserts that . . .
"The odds are that some terrible
people will become Supreme Court justices."
Upon (intellectually honest) reflection
of that assertion one would have to conclude that those odds can only
be determined with respect to one's definition of "terrible
"terrible" -- now DTDuck has even Krugman reverting to a 6th
grade vocabulary. He'll be using "terrific" next.)
Even people those USSCt justices I consider to
be disasters, like Kiki Ginsburg and Anton Scalia, I
wouldn't consider to be "terrible people." I consider vicious,
fear-mongering, bloviating megalomaniacs like Krugman to be terrible
people because they are either intellectually flawed, or
intellectually dishonest, or
For the second time in a single day -- three days
into a record-breaking rise in the Dow and two days after his prediction
that markets would collapse -- Krugman once again outs himself as being totally
clueless. With respect to the botched Nov09 prediction, he says:
"I am retracting that call, right
However, just so you'll know, Krugman
also tells us that he did
get Brexit right. (I haven't verified that claim.)
OK, so he's one for two, according to
him -- IOW, his guesses are no worse
than a Mickey Mouse coin-flip. And no better.
As an excuse for his risible fail Krugman reveals that he is ".
. . frazzled, sleepless,
depressed." But he stops short of saying what everyone who has
followed his Chicken Little bullspit is thinking: He is also a moran. At
least the depression is treatable.
Again Krugman refers to his debacle
of a prediction and lies to his readers by claiming that he
"quickly retracted" his botched prediction. In fact, he
only retracted it after two days of the markets making a laughing-stock
out of him.
And, like a true charlatan, Krugman now
hedges his predictions against each other. After predicting the markets would crash he
now claims that the markets look good into the foreseeable future:
"In fact, don’t be surprised if economic growth actually
accelerates for a couple of years."
Hopefully, you're quick enough to see
this scam for what it is.
If the markets continue their uphill
climb, Krugman can say "I told you so." If the markets crash,
Krugman can say "I told you so." But what Krugman is actually
telling us is that he thinks his NYT audience is so flipping brain-ded
they are not capable of detecting his bullspit. And he may be right on that
Undaunted by risible
failure, Krugman makes even more predictions. With
respect to DTDuck's coming trade "protectionism" Krugman
"Yes, we’ll export less, but we’ll also import less, and the
overall effect on jobs will be more or less a wash."
Did you catch his non sequitor,
a.k.a. his insufferable horse manure? Krugman is implicitly
asserting that the number of jobs required to produce goods and services
that America imports is equal to the number of jobs required to produce
goods/services that America exports. In the absence of any verifiable
data supporting this assertion, which data Krugman does not provide or
objectively skeptical person can only assume that the assertion is
more of prediction-poppycock. And the reason I say it is that
without the data there is no reason to believe a priori that the
number of jobs required to produce goods/services that America imports
from all over the world is in any way related to, much less equal to,
the number of American jobs required to produce goods/services that
But it gets
having not a clue about how the markets will react to DTDuck's success,
then spouts even more subjective reasons to fear the future. Even
though the rapidly rising Dow has forced him to conclude that there will
actually be no recession in the short term, Krugman reminds us that shit
still happens, and, consequently, you've got to have the kind and
quality of people on board who (Krugman deems) are sufficiently capable to deal with
that shit. But hiring those people ain't gonna' happen under DTDuck, according to
"Yet we’re about to see a major degradation in both
the quality and the independence of public servants. . . But all of this
will probably take time; the consequences of the new regime’s
awfulness won’t be apparent right away. Opponents of that regime need
to be prepared for the real possibility that good things will happen to
bad people, at least for a while."
What an incredibly ironic
statement. And the reason I say it is that, from my point of
view, bad things happen to both bad and good people, and one of the
worst things that can befall people trying to understand the
implications and ramifications of DTDuck's victory is that they believe Paul Krugman's bullspit.
Wanna' rip into this post? Have a go on