

Latest Media Infiltrations: Deadly Rescue National Review November 17, 2008 Krugman’s Posthumous Nobel
National Review Online October 14, 2008

"What has been your worst blogging experience? Donald Luskin." -- Brad DeLong"That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." -- Paul Krugman "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk." -- Charlie Gasparino
What I'm reading:

A Bound Man Shelby Steele
What I'm listening to:

Langley Schools Music Project
What I'm watching:

There Will Be Blood
What I'm playing:

Speed Racer
Order these from Amazon.com
at Amazon's normal low prices...
and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor.
Copyright 2002 thru 2008 Donald L. Luskin All rights reserved. "The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid" and "Krugman Truth Squad" are trademarks of Donald L. Luskin www.poorandstupid.com

"The road is cleared," said Galt. "We are going back to the world." He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar.
From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen.
From Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick
"there is some shit I will not eat"
From i sing of olaf glad and big by e. e. cummings
Some of the sites that have linked to us! * recently updated



|
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
DOUBLE DOWN
In my
April 25, 2003 National Review Online "Krugman Truth Squad" column I
wrote,
"...at some point not too far in the future, Krugman will make the same
$40,000-to-$500,000 error (i.e., lie) again in the pages of America's
'newspaper of record.' Bet on it. I'll lay you 100-to-1."
One of my NRO colleagues took me up on the bet. Well, looks like I
goaded Paul Krugman hard enough to get him to repeat
the
lie, and it only took about two weeks.
There it is in
today's New York Times column. Pay up. Send money. Thanks,
Paul.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:32 AM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
MONTY KRUGMAN TOUCHES THE THIRD GRAIL
We now have Paul Krugman's
ninth response
to
my exposé of the lies about President Bush's tax cuts in his
April 22 New
York Times column (his previous eight feeble apologiae are spread over
six postings on his personal site:
one,
two,
three,
four,
five and
six (and, of
course, still no correction from the "newspaper of record").
This
one consists of a single word, "Here"
-- linking to a transcript of the famous "Black Knight" scene from
Monty
Python and the Holy Grail. Krugman fails to reveal the identity of the
cast in this two-man scene. Discerning readers will draw their own conclusions
based on the facts and, perhaps, their biases.
Blog readers will, in addition, no doubt recognize this cinematic allusion as
one that was used over and over several weeks ago during the Iraq
invasion, to poke fun at Mohammed Said Sahaf.
Here's
Andrew Sullivan's version. Apparently for Krugman, Sullivan is "too
vile to read," but not too vile too to steal material from.
And
while we're on the subject, I take some personal satisfaction in the fact that
Krugman has slipped to the number two most partisan pundit of 2003 in the
ratings on Lying in Ponds
(that unusual name is drawn
from a line in Holy Grail). Maybe our work here and on National Review
Online really is reining Krugman in a bit. So perhaps a better cinematic
allusion would actually be
Get
Shorty. Looks like we got him good.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:02 AM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
DIRECT HIT
Reader Greg Richards nails it. We'd been circling the target, but
here's the direct hit on
Paul Krugman's
careless lie
that "Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war
hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb..."
Here's JFK -- Krugman's beloved "Bonnie Prince Charlie" (who was a big tax-cutter, by the way) -- on deck...
"President
John F. Kennedy watched a POLARIS (A-2) missile launch from the USS Observation
Island on November 16, 1963. The launch, from the USS Andrew Jackson (SSBN 619)
occurred just six days before the president's tragic assassination. SP Director,
Admiral 'Pete' Gallantin can be seen over the President's left shoulder, while
over his right shoulder is one of the IEC-built telemetry instrumentation vans."
>>Update...
Direct hit again! My old friend Sylvain Galineau, who blogs at
ChicagoBoyz, sent in this
portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower in military garb that's hanging in the
Smithsonian's National
Portrait Gallery. Sylvain writes, "This conflicts rather loudly with
Paul Krugman's assertion that such clothing is inappropriate for a US President.
One would thing the National Portrait Gallery would be rather strict and
respectful of such matters."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:20 PM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
KRUGMAN'S MILITARY GARB-AGE: READERS RESPOND
Readers responded in droves to
my
request for instances of US presidents who had worn military garb in office
-- contradicting Paul Krugman's
sweeping claim
that
"...American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military
affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a
genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled
military garb... There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties
would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of
his role as commander in chief."
Here are some of my favorites, among dozens that were sent in. Henry Hanks from Crooow Blog
came up with this one of Ulysses S. Grant. According to
the dealer selling this
print, "This image, issued during Grant's first Presidential term, shows the
President (in a military uniform), presumably sitting in the White House
surrounded by his family."

Kevin Madden sent this one of Bill Clinton being militarily
garbed by the little woman.

And Billy Wilson found this one, depicting the father/daughter
military garb dress-alike look that was so fashionable that year.

There were lots of great comments from readers, too.
"One thing that struck me about
the photo on your site of Clinton in military garb. Not Clinton himself
but the looks of utter indifference on the faces of the crew. Only Clinton is
smiling. Contrast that with the pictures of President Bush and the crew of the
Lincoln."
Tom Borchelt
"In
the photo on your site, note the flag patch on the sleeve of Clinton's
jacket; the blue field (the union) is facing to the rear. The flag is meant
always to be worn with the union facing forward so that it looks as it would
if the flag were blowing in the wind created by a forward movement. When the
flag is worn on the right sleeve, the patch used is a reversed flag with the
union on the right. With the standard flag, as in that picture, it looks like
the wearer is retreating. I'd love to know where Clinton got that jacket.
Could it possibly have been deliberate?"
Eve Tauss
"We have many things to remember Mr. Clinton by, but I must tell you this.
My son was, and is, a Navy SEAL stationed at Coronado, California. On several
occasions Mr. Clinton, while visiting San Diego, recruited SEALs to escort him
on a run down the beach at Coronado. He wore a SEAL Team One ballcap during
these runs. My son said that the SEAL command had difficulty finding
volunteers to escort Mr. Clinton. SEALs are generally very conservative and
were not big fans of Mr. Clinton. The photo ops made the newspapers (USA
Today, Toledo Blade, et al.). I don't imagine these were
political in nature, were they? At least Mr. Bush was a fighter pilot and knew
what to do at the controls."
Timothy R. King
"Whether or not Bush should have worn a flight suit for his landing on the
Lincoln, I don't see what else he could have worn. The S-3 is an ejection-seat
aircraft. To ride in any of the four seats, you need to be in a fitted
ejection harness that connects aircrew to the seat and survival gear. The
flight suit is nominally required to make all that stuff work together.
Besides, before the ban on public relations "goodwill rides," plenty of
civilians decked themselves out in full flight gear for rides on Navy jets.
Naval Air Station Pensacola's water survival schools have lots of celeb
pictures. Barbara Mandrell, Joan Lunden, and Charlie Gibson were featured on
the wall of fame when I went through. Dems are just mad that they didn't think
of it first.
"My only complaint: he should have arrived in an two-seat F-18. Muuuuuuuuuuch
cooler."
Joe Begley
"When I was a cadet at West Point in the late 1970s, President James Earl
"Jimmy" Carter went jogging with the US Army troops along the Korean DMZ. I
remember a picture in the "newspaper of record," which came to every cadet
room, and followed us to our nearby training site at Camp Buckner. Of course,
we had no choice of papers, and had the subscription fee deducted from our
pay. President Carter may have been wearing an Army physical training shirt
(military garb).
"President William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton and much of his posse
stayed onboard US Navy vessels during the 50th anniversary of D-Day in 1994.
The Navy reported bathrobes (military garb) and towels missing (military garb
accessories).
"FDR used to whistle up Navy vessels just to go fishing. It allowed him to
appear vigorous, despite his confinement to a wheelchair. US Presidents taking
political advantage of their role as commander-in-chief prior to this
President? Never."
Anonymous
"I would like to point out that two democrats, Henry Waxman and Robert Byrd,
are suddenly so concerned about the cost of this appearance that they felt
compelled to make public statements. No concerns were ever issued when other
presidents (including Bill Clinton) spoke from aircraft carriers or
battleships. There were even
no complaints when it was announced that he would be landing in a Viking
instead of a helicopter. For a list of presidential appearances on naval vessels, may I
direct you to the excellent
DoD site of Naval History.
"I think the entire hysteria from the democrats is because they didn't
anticipate the FLIGHT SUIT! Speaking as a woman, that was a fine looking
Commander-in-Chief. Even the medical assistant I visited the next day said
that he looked pretty good for an old guy.
At any rate, having reviewed the articles and comments in the time between
when the speech was announced and AFTER the landing and speech, I am forced
to conclude that this entire brouhaha (including Krugman's rant) is a
desperate attempt to negate the flight suit, nothing more!"
Christa Cooper
"I note one major difference in the Clinton versus Bush Picture in military
garb. Clinton needed his secret service detail close by to protect him from
the military. They are nowhere to be seen in the Bush pictures. Tells you
something!"
Charlie Miller
"I was watching 'Special Report with Brit Hume' on Fox News last night,
where U.S. News and World Report's Michael Barone was a guest, and
thought you might be interested in one of his quotes. While discussing the
topic of President Bush's flight on to the Abraham Lincoln, he brought
up the fact that you can 'find pictures of Bill Clinton in similar garb on the
internet by doing a five minute Google search.' I wonder
where he got that idea
from?"
Sean Boots
Our National Review colleague Rick Brookhiser notes on
NRO's The Corner that Presidents Washington and Madison appeared in military
garb. And Pejman Yousefzadeh
on his blog
Pejmanesque has exhumed some devastating relics from down
the memory hole showing how other (Democrat) politicians have spent
public funds on military settings, garb, and other misadventures.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:35 PM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
KRUGMAN: LIQUIDITY TRAPPED
Paul Krugman must really be deep in our trap -- he keeps on gnawing his legs off, one at a time, yet he's still stuck. He has now posted on his personal web site his
seventh response
to
my exposé of the lies about President Bush's tax cuts in his
April 22 New
York Times column (his previous six increasingly desperate-sounding
responses are spread over four postings:
one,
two,
three and
four).
In this latest response, he calls me the "stalker-in-chief" and then spends
hundreds of words debating a point that I have barely mentioned -- the concept
of the macroeconomic policy dilemma known in the literature as the "liquidity
trap." He claims,
"...my stalker-in-chief thinks that the liquidity trap is 'elephant shit'.
...it is bizarre that someone who claims to have insight into economics has
apparently never heard of a liquidity trap. It's even more bizarre that someone
who spends a lot of time attacking yours truly doesn't know that this is one of
my signature academic issues."
Krugman doesn't link to any of my web postings on this (here's
the most relevant one), so his readers don't have the opportunity to see
what I really said. What I really said was that Krugman's responses to my
challenge to him have all been to kick up a lot of highfaluting jargonized
academic theory to offer an after-the-fact and entirely conjectural
explanation of a claim that was initially presented in his column as nothing
more than common-sense open-and-shut arithmetic -- that Bush's tax cuts spent
$500,000 each to create 1.4 million $40,000 jobs.
Yes, what he wrote in the New York Times about the cost of the jobs
was bull shit. And his subsequent attempts to backfill his lie have been nothing
more than to conceal his commonplace bull shit behind a heap of grandiose
elephant shit.
Does it matter that this particular species of elephant shit happens to be a
"signature academic issue" for Krugman? For the seemingly infinitely vain
Krugman, it does. He writes,
"...I set out to write down a fully worked-out, no loose ends model to show
that liquidity traps can't really happen. (The purpose of such a model is to
help you think clearly about an issue - realism is not the point.) To my
surprise it showed that liquidity traps can indeed happen;
Japan's trap was real.
And Japan remains stuck in that trap. That in itself makes the liquidity trap a
very important subject..."
What makes it very important? The fact that Paul Krugman created a
model? A model about which he himself says "realism is not the point"?
Stop the presses! I can see the headlines now... "Economist Creates New
Model! World Leaders Rush to Princeton Despite Non-Realism!"
In my economic view of the world, there is no such thing as a liquidity trap. It's yet
another Keynesian delusion in the arsenal of the economics of mass destruction.
But Krugman's entitled to his different opinion on that. But he's not entitled
to lie to the readers of the New York Times by citing what seem to be
simple statistics which, unbeknownst to the readers, are true if and only if
you stack the elephant shit exactly this high and look at it exactly from
that angle.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:02 PM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
KRUGMAN DOES DOWD
Funny how Paul Krugman hasn't been writing about President Bush's
tax plan lately in his New York Times column. I suppose it's been
difficult to focus on his op-eds when he's been conducting what he appropriately
calls a "little seminar" on his personal website (here,
here, and
here)
designed to backfill over the lies
I
exposed in his
April 22 column. Or maybe it's just that, as William F.
Buckley, Jr. once said, "The baloney rejects the meat grinder."
So today's
column is nothing but an insubstantial Bush-bashing exercise that, absent
the byline, you'd swear had been written by Maureen Dowd (just as
last Friday's
Wall Street-bashing column was pure School of Morgenson). It's all about
mocking Bush for his jet landing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, and
portraying it as a betrayal of the decent traditions of the American presidency.
According to Krugman,
"...American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military
affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a
genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled
military garb... There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties
would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of
his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country."
And it's all the worse because of Bush's allegedly spotty military service
record, a year absent from the National Guard. There's even a source
citation for that claim -- practically a Krugman first! -- but it's none other
than a Times affiliate, the Boston Globe.
This is just too easy, folks.
A picture is worth a thousand words... Is this a president? Does this "resemble military garb"? And how about that military service record...?

This took just five minutes of Googling. Who can come up with more examples?
Let me know.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:45 PM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
IS THE NEW YORKER INFECTED WITH KARS?
Once famous for its fanaticism for fact-checking, the latter-day manifestation of The New Yorker now substitutes parroting Paul Krugman's New York Times columns without attribution. Is it a case of KARS -- Krugman Adaptive Repetition Syndrome? Or should we just call it plagiarism? In the latest issue's "Talk of the Town" column, we find:"Even taking the President at his word, each new job would cost the government five hundred and fifty thousand dollars in lost revenues, which is about seventeen times the salary of the average American worker." Readers of this web site will recognize that as very nearly a quote from Krugman's April 22 column, which has been serially debunked here (most recently) and -- how can I put this? -- confessed on Krugman's own web site no less than six times now. Really, David Remnick should know it's still plagiarism if the thing you steal is a lie. It's enough to make one long for the days of the tiny mummies, or at least of Tina Brown. I'll never trust a New Yorker story about Madonna again.Thanks to our mole planted deep in the limousine liberal bowels of Goldman Sachs for the tip on this one.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:10 PM |
link
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up! |
PAUL, YOU CAN STOP CONFESSING NOW!
Another apologia from Paul Krugman! Paul, it's not necessary.
I
have absolved you. So you can stop confessing now. It's getting
embarrassing, and there are other penitents waiting in line. Enough already!
Yes, you lied in your
April 22 New
York Times column when you compared the ten-year $500,000 per job cost
of President Bush's tax plan with the one-year average wage of $40,000.
But you've confessed it -- indirectly, to be sure -- with the five squirmingly
defensive appeals you've made on your personal web site since the column ran
(spread over three postings:
one,
two,
three). So
was this new one
posted today really necessary? Did you really need to cut and paste more
scholastic nonsense from your favorite econ textbooks to re-establish your
credibility, or was it just to give you the excuse to start with these lines...?
"Well, whaddya know - my little seminar on
liquidity traps, fiscal policy, and jobs seems to have cleared the air. (There
are some people who would accuse me of lying if I said that grass is green,
but there's nothing to be done about that.) In any case, I now think that it
might be useful to use the same framework to explain my view of... [blah blah
blah]."
"Cleared the air"? Hardly. The whole point of your
"little seminar" --
appropriately described, I must say -- was to create a smoke-screen to hide
your lies. That said, I know you have no compunction about lying -- you do it so
often and so carelessly, no doubt in the service of a cause so precious to you
that you think your end justifies your lying means. But what got under your skin
on this one was that this particular lie made you look like an incompetent
economist. It really took you down a peg. And you don't have all that many pegs
to start with. So all the frantic recitations of the Keynesian catechism had a
dual purpose -- a smoke-screen, but also a chance to show off your credentials.
And as to the "lying if I said that grass is green"
stuff -- yeah, I probably would. At least, I would if you said that yellow grass
or brown grass was green grass. You see, the problem with your Keynesian
diagrams is that they say that all grass is green all year round, no matter
what. All tax-cuts are just temporary demand shocks. That's simply not true
-- even Alan Greenspan in his
House Financial Services Committee Q-and-A last week drew the
distinction between taxes on capital and taxes on labor incomes. And when
something is not true, it is proper to say that such a thing is a lie.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:20 PM |
link
There's more...visit the archives!
|