WordPress version

  About & Contact          Archives         Page One          Resource Pages          Topics Index          Art


Bullet List Analysis




Getting to the guts of the matter

Nov16|2016
4:00 pm PST


Paul Krugman: "frazzled, sleepless, depressed" -- sounds 
like he should be on suicide watch after botched
market-collapse prediction

Lighten up, Paul, one outa' two ain't that bad. 


A Mickey Mouse coin-flip: 
Krugman goes one for two

A 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 published Nov09-Nov14.  

  • Nov09 -- Krugman's fear-mongering piece of trash blows up in his face 

"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. 

  •   Nov11a ~~ Krugman's next fear-mongering piece of trash in which he begins his relentless self-rehabilitation effort to erase the stink of his previous fear-mongering piece of trash.

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 people." (Gawd, "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 both. 

  • Nov11b ~~ Krugman: sounds to me like a candidate for suicide watch

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 now." 

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. 

  • Nov14  ~~ Krugman's hedge: intellectual honesty has taken the week off at the NYT

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 point.

Undaunted by risible failure, Krugman makes even more predictions. With respect to DTDuck's coming trade "protectionism" Krugman predicts: 

"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 cite, any 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 America exports.

But it gets worse.  

Krugman, 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 Krugman:

"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


Denis R. O'Brien, PhD/Esq.
denis [at-sign] logophere [full stop] com

 

Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.