Krugman is a damn fool. Read something years ago where he was scratching his head wondering why Korea developed and Nigeria didn’t or something along those lines.

In other words, he’s clueless. And he shows the same inability to think forbidden thoughts when he chalks up Republican resentment to racism. Yes, most people do not like being told that their culture is worthless, that they are responsible for all the world’s ills. They don’t like being discriminated against via affirmative action, or seeing their countries changed. They even fear black crime, and some have the temerity to think that that should actually be a political issue.

He’s generally right that Republicans engage in bait and switch with their base. But the concerns of white Americans are legitimate as political grievances can be, not “ugliness.”

Forgive me for not reading the entire article (just what’s on this first page here is sufficient) since I get Krugman’s drift. His tirade is hardly new. He and the TIMES have been churning out politically-correct hate screeds of this kind for decades.

Kosher liberals like Krugman go nuts when white citizens in white-majority cultures like France and the US show an interest in preserving their racial composition and advancing the interests of their founding racial stock. I can understand why Ashkenazi Jews like Krugman don’t like this, but why does he think that he can continue to depict White kinship as being evil?

Until very recently, Christian France spoke one language and the French were of one race. Racial continuity is normal and natural. The French–and most White people–prefer it this way. It is an expression of self-interest and self-rule. If you don’t get it, Mr. Krugman, just ask your rabbi. He’ll explain it to you.

Does Japan apologize for admitting NO non-Japanese refugees into its nation whatsoever? Of course not. And true to form, Krugan never complains one bit about Japanese attitudes concerning race and homogeneity.

In fact, Japan allows no permanent non-Japanese immigration into Japan at any time. Never. It doesn’t happen and it’s not going to happen. In fact, the Japanese still largely refuse to even buy American or European cars. Why? They’re not Japanese. End of story. This goes for Korea, too.

The very idea or race-mixing is highly distasteful to the Japanese. They treasure their homogeneity, their culture, their unique physical appearance, and they intend to preserve these traits. Japanese ‘racism’ has made their country one of the safest, most cohesive and most orderly in the world. China is similarly devoted to maintaining its racial stock and national homogeneity. And I don’t blame them. It works.

This propensity for maintaining racial continuity is a preference among all civilized societies. Only since America’s so-called ‘civil rights era’ have majority-white countries allowed themselves to become inundated by millions of unattractive, low-IQ, Third World refugees. And pro-Zionist liberals like Krugman have been cheering on this transformation from its very start. Unfortunately, this experiment is not only irreversible, but it is not going terribly well either. Civic-mindedness, community trust and national cohesion are all going down in multi-cult America and Europe. And this is just the beginning.

Alienation–though hard to measure–is growing in the US and everywhere else where ‘diversity’ is rising. Does this shock Krugman? Does he even care?

Significantly, in the US, there are still dozens of ‘Chinatowns’ going strong–and their numbers are actually growing. Hasn’t Krugman noticed? Or does he have his Jewish blinders on?

Why doesn’t Krugman call for desegregating Chinatown?–Or Israel, for that matter?

Does race (ancestry) matter–or not?

Or is it Whites–and only Whites–who must renounce their racial identities?

Indeed, in today’s multi-cultural America, there are entirely new ‘Hispanic neighborhoods’ popping up throughout the Southwest. Many are the product of illegal immigrants who have entering the US illegally. This is nevertheless a good thing according to liberals like Krugman, even though Spanish, after three generations, remains the dominant language in many of these communities. Other ‘minorities’ are following this example.

But this process is called Balkanization. It does not generally produce happy endings.

In our nation’s capitol, there’s now a Hispanic Caucus. Naturally, there are both a Black as well as a Jewish Caucus firmly entrenched in Washington DC.

In San Francisco and elsewhere, there is the ‘Asian Yellow Pages’ for persons who want to do business only with fellow Asians. And don’t forget the ‘Gay’ Yellow pages in San Francisco, LA and Palm Springs.

What does Krugman and the TIMES have to say about this phenomena of self-segregation and the fracturing of American culture? Good thing? Who are the losers?

Seems like some identity groups are getting a bit more equal than others, wouldn’t you say, Mr. Krugman?

The fact that Krugman is a professional scold is annoying enough. But it’s his strategic dishonesty that is truly detestable.

With help from Zionist hypocrites like Krugman, the Jewish-dominated West has been shamed into forsaking its racial identity and origins. Western civilization is in decline.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman wants no talk of what’s good (or bad) for White community in any way, shape or form. In his world, there’s no such thing as the White community. That’s racism! Recognized ‘community status’ (and community interests) are reserved for privileged minorities like his.

Fortunately, France and America are blessed with a few emerging leaders such as Le Pen and Trump who are challenging these double-standards. It’s about time.

Naturally, Israel would would laugh at Krugman if he applied his anti-racial rants towards the Jewish people. But of course, Jews are special so let’s move on.

The bogus political Kool-Aid that Krugman and the Times are selling is strictly for Goyish consumption. Do not drink it.

Paul Krugman’s interest in “Psychohistory”, “Interstellar Trade” and science-fiction like economics (which deserved him a Nobel Prize) was made known to the inhabitants of the Down Under shores “Why don’t bad ideas go away?” at the “Festival of Dangerous Ideas” held in Sydney in Sept. 2015, where he duly pissed off the “Australian economic insiders” (those engaged in such pedestrian activities as production, trade, finances). He made no mystery that it was the science-fiction of Isaac Asimov that made him “use his understanding of the mathematics of human behaviour to save civilisation” (no less).
Was it only that? This piece emanates such a stong flavour of Trotsky-ish “Antifascism” as to make you almost nostalgic.

Leave it to Krugman.

Gotta love Krugman. Those in France that want to protect their borders merely to stop bombings and illegal immigration are racist xenophobes. Those that vote Republican, racist xenophobes.

But Blacks voting 96% as a block for Obama and all the Black representatives in local and state government, mere progressives voting their interest. Love it!

Of course, Krugman and his wealthy liberal pals in NYC living in their big rich all-White member condominiums, they aren’t racist xenophobes wanting to keep the dark hoards off their home doorstep, it’s just coincidence there are no residents darker than the newsprint he writes on. Guess it depends just who it is that wants to get away from dark people when the press decides who the they want to label racist xenophobes. All-Black voting Blacks, Progressive Democrats. Racist card-throwing Krugman and his all White neighborhood, Progressive Liberal member of the press, just plain folks. American citizens wanting a fair shake on jobs, immigration, taxes and the economy, RACIST XENOPHOBES.

Krugman is a moron, or he is a cynical prick. He either doesn’t see his rote hypocrisy and reverse, pandering liberal racism, or he writes it out and knows damned well no one in the racist, liberal circle in NYC will call him on it. Somehow racist and xenophobic doesn’t count when you’re Paul Krugman and we’re talking about where he lives and moves around by limousine with armed security. All in the interest of keeping life real-and White..

And how racist and xenophobic of me to notice old Paul and his usual tactics and methods and racism-err, progressivism.

All that coming from Krugman, a crazed supremacist Zionist, avid supporter of apartheid Israel.

PAUL KRUGMAN—JEWISH LIAR OF THE LYING SCAMMING JEW YORK TIMES.

Thanks for the post, Sir. As I read it, I was shocked that, in this day and age, Krugman has not yet become civilized and continues to denigrate normal and good behavior such as patriotism that is a hallmark of all cultured people.

Calling who care about their own country “xenophobes” and racists is perverse. And these patriotic who care about their own country and want to save it from the alien invasion are NOT the minority—they are the majority.

So why is he lying? Because Paul Krugman is a white man who imagines he is a “Jew”. See his photo here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Judaists (who are mostly white) believe they are children of Abraham, who was a pimp who sold his wife/sister to an African (therefore black) Pharaoh, in reliance on the Torah, an obvious “forgery” (–McCabe). They worship a mass murderer Moshe (who was so black, the black Pharaoh assumed he was his grandson) as a prophet.

Krugman is angry that if whites become civilized and patriotic, they are more likely to denigrate his barbaric criminal African cult of Judaism, so he wants them to “tolerate” other gutter alien “cultures” so they will tolerate HIS gutter alien cult of Judaism.

It is sad to see a white man like Krugman become so brainwashed by this lying Rabbis and the fake Torah that he starts hating his own white race and promoting its extermination. No wonder they say the vile Torah will make a sane man insane.

I hereby nominate Krugman for “Mad Jew of the Day” of 12/12/15.

Good idea Mr Unz. I love how seriously you take good, all-sides discussion, and your original ideas about eg funding. I still wish you had voting (‘up only’ is one way some controversial Reddit subs cope with brigading), but, you’ve obviously put thought into it.

This article must really be read in its entirety. It’s really not about Trump or the National Front in France- it’s about the Elite’s declining “ability to control the discourse”.
Since Paul Krugman is himself a prominent member of that same Elite, his frankness in describing how essential that control is ( he obviously believes it to be a “good thing” ) in maintaining the rule of the Few over the Many explains why we live in the Era of Political Correctness and why the Elites are in panic mode over Mr. Trump and Ms. LePen. It is far more difficult to maintain rule of the Few when that Few are widely believed to be not only arrogant and hubris filled but also bunglers.
A Must Read !

Krugman says that:

Both [the Trump and the Le Pen political movements] involved political figures tapping into the resentments of a bloc of xenophobic and/or racist voters who have been there all along.

That is an extremely unfair assessment!

One can like Mexicans or Syrians or whatever, and still oppose immigration from Mexico or Syria. Opposition to immigration does not translate to hatred of outsiders. The fact remains that Syrians come from a radically different foreign culture with lots of baggage.
One can be in favor of immigration in general, but still desire limits to immigration. A strong argument for such a position claims that immigrants from certain places should be acquired at a slow pace, so that the immigrants have the time and opportunity to settle and integrate.
One can be in favor of mass immigration, and still oppose illegal immigration. So one could say – let the Mexicans / Syrians come in; but please make sure that the entry is accomplished in a legal manner.
Today Drudge references an article about the unemployed youth in Spain. Down there, the official unemployment rate is something like 20%, and the youth unemployment rate 50%. Given that, one can be in favor of mass unbridled immigration, and still favor curtailment of immigration in the short term, for obvious reasons.
One can be in favor of epic relentless immigration, and still oppose immigration from Arab Muslim countries, given certain recent (and not so recent) events.

These are all perfectly obvious points, and yet the establishment refuses to acknowledge them in the least. Instead, they wonder how there could be so many racists, and pontificate with their thumbs in their mouths like drooling morons.

As Buchanan correctly observed, the ruling elite has gone unhinged. On this and many other issues.

I disagree with Krugman on many things, but he hit the nail on the had with his characterization of Republican establishment’s bait-and-switch:

But there is a strong element of bait-and-switch to this strategy. Whatever dog whistles get sent during the campaign, once in power the G.O.P. has made serving the interests of a small, wealthy economic elite, especially through big tax cuts, its main priority — a priority that remains intact, as you can see if you look at the tax plans of the establishment presidential candidates this cycle.

Sooner or later the angry whites who make up a large fraction, maybe even a majority, of the G.O.P. base were bound to rebel — especially because these days much of the party’s leadership seems inbred and out of touch. They seem, for example, to imagine that the base supports cuts to Social Security and Medicare, an elite priority that has nothing to do with the reasons working-class whites vote Republican.

France was significantly different before Napoleon and his centralizing tendencies, to cite one instance of historical inflection points.

There were numerous languages and dialects, with much mutual incomprehension. There is still some language variation, with remaining Breton, Basque and Provençal speakers and some German speakers along the Rhine departments thrown in, for example. Regions may still take some perverse pleasure in retaining their patois. Nonetheless, the idea of France was more firmly established, and lives on, in memories and actions in spite of wreckers that would dilute that significant cultural heritage.

well said sir

Kruggy is a stooge “economist” for the uber-criminal Fed

all the shabby little fraudsters calling white folk ‘racists’ for wanting to persevere are projecting their own all-consuming bitterness, burning resentments and meanness of spirit.

‘Why don’t you white people hate yourselves as much as we hate you?!’

‘Why don’t you white people hate yourselves as much as we hate you?!’

Way too many do.

True. There’s untoward sensitivity in commenters to verbal labels. Even contrarian rightists apparently have their pc: you’re not supposed to call people racist or xenophobe.

Krugman is trying to understand why the nationalist right is breaking through elite control. I don’t think, however, he offers a convincing explanation. He claims France marginalized nationalists whereas the U.S. encouraged them. So, either policy leads to the same growth of nationalism? Then what’s Krugman explaining? I suppose he would recommend a golden mean set at ignore, but he doesn’t explore why that would fare any better for the elites and their pc commandments.

From the guy is is “0” for….ever in his financial/economic idealizations.

“Both involved political figures tapping into the resentments of a bloc of xenophobic and/or racist voters who have been there all along.”

Typical Lib, if you disagree with the narrative, you’re a racist !

And this is just one more example of why the Carlos Slim Daily is doomed.

Smacks of the

“But I don’t know anybody who voted for Nixon”

Mindset.

No?

I know it would be an act of anti-Semitism to ask Paul Krugman while he is suggesting “free movement of people, open borders, and harmonized regulations” to European nations who live inside their ancestral lands – offer the same advice to Israel, while is located on a foreign land.

As for people of “Freedom Fries” are concerned, I think they’ve “democratic rights” to elect any of France major three parties, because they all have one thing in common with Donald Trump – “No more Muslim immigrants, please.” You ever wondered why?

Rabbi Baruch Efrati, a teacher at Yishva community school in the West Bank, says Jews around the world should be happy at turning Europe into a Muslim majority region.

“With the help of G-d, the Gentile (non-Jewish) will adopt a healthier life with a lot of modesty and integrity, and not like the hypocritical Christianity which appears pure but is fundamentally corrupt,” said rabbi – reported by Israeli daily YNet News on November 11, 2012.

http://rehmat1.com/2013/01/02/rabbi-islamization-of-europe-is-good-for-jews/

JEWISH FRAUDSTER PAUL KROOKMAN WANTS ALIENS TO INVADE USA BUT KEEP ISRAEL PURE.

Rehmat, you are so right.

Since Judiasts like Paul Krugman love 3rd world aliens so much, he should be in Israel promoting their importation. But, instead, Israel is the most “nativist” nation on earth, which has declared itself a “Jewish” state, and is using a DNA test to keep non-Jews out and is building the world’s biggest prison to keep black Africans out, and sends them to Sweden and imprisons and kills Gazans who enter illegally.

See:

http://www.africanglobe.net/featured/africans-fight-freedom-israel-builds-worlds-largest-prison-camp/

http://newobserveronline.com/jews-demand-open-borders-for-usa-but-use-dna-to-keep-israel-racially-pure/

Israel builds fence to keep immigrants out:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/07/fortress-israel-work-starts-on-fence-line-along-jordanian-border/

Israelis call immigrants “infiltrators” and try to keep them out:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-europe-takes-in-migrants-israel-tries-to-keep-them-out/

I have never seen Krugman promote the alien invasion for Israel, so he is just trying to scam us. If Judaists loves them so much, they can have them in Israel.

Interestingly, it seems that Krugman got a “noble prize” in economics for “discovering” that countries that have too much of one thing (say, tomatoes) can export them and import other things (like eggs) that they do not have enough of. All the farmers and even kids have known this for millennia. Therefore tomato farmers sell their crop in the market, and use the funds to buy eggs, etc. For this “discovery”, he was given a Nobel Prize. This indicates that the Judaists may have bribed and blackmailed the Noble committee too, as Judaists get 20% of the Noble Prizes, often without good reasons or for bogus reasons such as “contributing to the field of….”.

See the online article: “HOW JEWS GRAB SO MANY NOBEL PRIZES–SECRET TRICK EXPOSED!” at:

http://www.maya12-21-2012.com/2012forum/index.php?topic=14039.0

Paul Krugman should change his name to Paul Krookman.

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BaileyAssociates/HumanBiodiversityGroup.htm

Roster of Human Biodiversity Discussion Group Members
as of 7/20/99 Maintained by Steve Sailer

Krugman, Paul Economist, MIT; columnist: Slate & Fortune

He was on an e-mail list. Did he ever participate? Or did he just ignore it, look at it a few times, and dismiss it as a group of cranks?

So if you want a temporary halt to immigration while the broken system is reviewed and upgraded you’re a xenophobic racist? Riiiiight.

Shoulda stuck with economics Mr. K. At least you know something about THAT.

The economics ‘Nobel Prize’ is from the BANK of Sweden, it is not one of the originals. Of course the banksters love Keynesian gibberish.

I know it would be an act of anti-Semitism to ask Paul Krugman while he is suggesting “free movement of people, open borders, and harmonized regulations” to European nations who live inside their ancestral lands – offer the same advice to Israel, while is located on a foreign land.

It wouldn’t even be an act of parity. Apartheid Israel is almost completely deprived of new non-Jewish citizens, year after year, but the racists running the country won’t budge. Meanwhile, the racist Jewish diaspora still concentrates all of their immigration policy rhetoric on white, nominally or historically Christian countries in the west, which are allowing in much more diversity than Apartheid Israel is.

Jewish “anti-racists” are like doctors who ignore patients with sucking chest wounds to focus on people with skinned knees.

Unless they’re not like doctors. If viewed more like executioners, their behavior starts to make sense.

Maybe people are just tired of watching self important tubthumpers draining their pockets to support causes that none of them find relevant to their daily existence? Maybe people are tired of wondering just who the hell the politicians are talking to when they make speeches? Maybe they are wondering why they always coerced by law to be the first to ante up, and the last to see any benefit?

“If you are wondering where the support for Mr. Trump or Marine Le Pen, the head of the National Front, is coming from, you just haven’t been paying attention”

that’s easy. Natives in both countries are sick and tired of being marginalized by both sides of the political spectrum. And tired of paying taxes that go to support freeloaders.

The US lacked social cohesion in your mythic pre- civil rights Camelot. The fissures went back to colonial times. Northerners settled to be free of the English aristocracy. Southerners settled to be their own version of the English aristocracy. The Constitutional Convention barely got consent for one union, with the compromise of the Federalist system. That essentially kicked the can down the road until the contradictions resulted in Civil War. The southern slave system allowed a few whites to get very wealthy but resulted in impoverishment of most southern whites. The slaveowning whites didn’t give a damn about their impoverished white brethren. The Know-Nothing movement excluded Irish Catholics and other white, northern European immigrants from their definition of who could be a True American. The Gilded Age was the age of the Iron Rule in economics and economic competition frequently led to physical violence. Social divisions during industrialization threatened the fabric of American society. What social cohesiveness was achieved was a result of finally recognizing the stake of farmers and laborers. The civil rights movement was a logical and organic outgrowth of the universalism that gained traction in the early to mid Twentieth Century, and said universalism might be considered the high point of American culture.

Your examples of Japan and China as societies with social cohesion because of racial homogeneity are not good examples. China is not all that homogeneous. It was traditionally, and still is to a certain extent, ruled by a Han elite based in the northeast. Most of China’s universities are in the east. Provinces in the west and south have a lot of tension in their relationship with eastern Han rule. Think of the Uyghurs and Tibetans. China is not linguistically uniform, You know what lends China some measure of cohesion? An ethos of social community that we in the West lack. It affects social and economic policy. For example, they have addressed the social challenges of industrialization by accommodating the needs of a migrant workforce. Migrant workers are provided with company dormitories, commissaries, dining facilities, entertainment, and predictable time off around the Chinese New Year to visit with their families in the provinces. China’s leadership recognizes the consequences of the rise of economic inequality over the past 30 some years and there is a concerted effort towards economic development in the hinterlands.

Meiji Japan maintained social cohesion during industrialization with some very smart psychology and social engineering. Economic development was a patriotic project and every Japanese was impressed with the importance of their own participation. In the traditional Japanese social hierarchy, the next highest group beneath the Samurai were the peasant farmers, followed by the tradesmen, followed by the merchants. Entrepreneurs were not the sacred cows that they are in the West; they were there to serve. Universal education was implemented under an extremely centralized system. Ethics and teamwork remain a big part of Japanese public education. “Selfish” is one of the worst condemnations or a person’s character in Japan.

Japanese shun American cars because they do not meet their standards for quality and economy, and they are poorly designed for Japanese driving and parking conditions. George H. W. Bush once presented Japanese leaders with a left-hand drive American car.

The USA’s problems with violence and lack of social cohesion are homegrown and stem largely from the excesses of liberal individualism. But you’ll probably prefer to use Jews and people with darker skin tones as an excuse.

Time for me to eat some delicious carnitas that I bought from some fine Americans at the local carniceria today……

The instant I saw Kruger’s recommendation on my Piketty book I knew it was trash. Yep, its trash.

What is wrong with being racist and zenophobic?…Try it…you’ll like it!!!!

Racism and zenophobia is Jew-Pure Israel’s highest moral virtue…and we subsidize this world view!!!!

What is there to debate?….Krugman desires the racial extermination of our People on US Soil….And we fucking hate the greedy fucking ___Krugman!!!

A very pissed-off Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia very well may hit the reset button very soon!!!!..I fully expect Turkey to kill some more Russians…and I fully expect 100 hundred Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian cruise missiles to fucking annihilate Incirlick Airforce base in Turkey.

Everyone here needs to start buying shortwave radios so you can keep in contact with your kids in college.

You mean Freddy?

The situation of the Republicans that Krugman is describing reminds me of the situation of the US government supporting Jihadis. The Jihadis were useful for neocon geopolitical objectives until they started to look at the West. The teabaggers and White Nationalists were useful for Republican electoral objectives until they started setting their own agenda. Oh, the dilemmas….

I don’t know whether you realize it or not, but Krugman is married to a black woman. FWIW.

In discussing Paul Krugman, I think we need to distinguish between his work as an academic economist, for which he was honored by a “Nobel Prize” in Economics, and his later work as a political columnist for the NY Times, which is matter of a much lesser order.

I posted on TAC from 2010 through early 2015. On several occasions, I posted messages dealing with Paul Krugman and the “housing bubble from 2001 to 2008, in which I made it clear that Krugman was openly promoting a “housing bubble” in 2000 and 2001 in order to counter the collapse of the internet/telecom stock market bubble in early 2000 and later refused to accept any responsibility for his faulty advice, even going so far as to openly deny making any such advice, which is preposterous in light of the undeniable record. As far as I am concerned, the man is a charlatan and a totally dishonest man.

Here are two messages I posted in 2013, which are self explanatory and which contained links back to messages I posted back in 2010 (which I am not going to post in order to minimize the clutter):

“tbraton says:
May 23, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Back in December 2010, I posted several messages on Larison’s blog in which I linked to several Krugman columns back in 2002 where he was calling for a “housing bubble” to replace the “NASDAQ bubble” by cutting interest rates to promote the housing. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/not-a-cunning-plan/ (see comments by tbraton). Needless to say, Alan Greenspan and Krugman’s former department colleague at Princeton, Ben Bernanke, followed Krugman’s advice by dramatically cutting interest rates and keeping them at a low level for two years. Nevertheless, when the real estate bubble finally burst, the intellectually dishonest Krugman placed the blame for the “bubble” on George W. Bush and did not own up to his own considerable contribution to that debacle. Now, you can blame George W. for many things (and I have and refused to vote for him the second time), but the housing bubble is not one of them (unless it was the reappointment of Greenspan to chairmanship of the Fed).”

“tbraton says:
May 26, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Tim D said:
“While he underestimated how bad the housing bubble was, he still predicted it and later admitted his errors.”

As I pointed out above and have pointed out several times on TAC during the last 2 years, Krugman was pushing for a “housing bubble to replace the NASDAQ bubble” in 2001 and 2002. So he not only “predicted” it but advocated policies (lower interest rates) expressly designed to produce it. If he apologized for his role in pushing for a housing bubble, I must have missed it, and I do recall him blaming George W. Bush for the housing bubble after it burst. Elsewhere, he has actually denied calling for a housing bubble (apparently forgetting what he had written in many columns in the early 2000’s):

http://archive.mises.org/10153/krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bubble/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/paul-krugman_0_n_3118069.html”

Don’t you know being an economist means never having to say you were wrong?

which deserved him a Nobel Prize

There is no Nobel price for economy. What people like Krugman “earns” is a fake of the “sell your mother, buy another” financial industry

What I find extraordinary about Krugman is not only that he was placing the blame on George W. Bush for the “housing bubble” that was created by the Federal Reserve led by Alan Greenspan and his former Princeton colleague Ben Bernanke but that he disavowed any responsibility himself and denied that he was openly calling for a low interest rate policy in his NY Times columns in the early 2000’s to spur a “housing bubble.” Here is what I posted on TAC back in December 2010, which sums up the case against Krugman, citing his own words in a NY Times column from August 2002:

“tbraton says:
December 10, 2010 at 7:41 am
From a Paul Krugman column on August 2, 2002:

“The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?ref=paulkrugman

“Well, Alan Greenpan, aided by then Governor Ben Bernanke, certainly followed Krugman’s advice and started lowering all ready low interest rate even lower, getting the fed funds rate down to 1% by June 2003 and keeping it at that level for a year. (We now know from the release of the OMC minutes that Bernanke was urging a cut to 0.5%.) The housing bubble, like the internet/telecom bubble of the late 1990’s, was on its way.

“As I noted earlier, Krugman refers to the “irrational exurberance” of the 1990’s without acknowledging or displaying any awareness of the Fed’s contribution to that climate. I find him to be intellectually dishonest in addition to being intellectually wedded to a deep belief in government action to regulate the economy.”

Of course, it should be noted that Greenspan, after he left the Fed in early 2006 and the housing bubble burst in 2008, stated, with a straight face, that he was unaware of any “housing bubble” while he was at the Fed. I didn’t have advantage of the world-class staff of economists at the Federal Reserve like Greenspan, but I knew from posting on Yahoo Finance Message Boards starting in early 2003 that there was constant chatter of a “housing bubble” from 2003 on. I also read reports in the local papers about how people were buying and flipping condominiums before construction was finished and then moving on to the next condo project and doing the same. I happen to live in south Florida, one of the epicenters of the “housing bubble,” and I can pinpoint the time the music stopped. I was talking to a friend who had formerly lived in my complex before he and his wife decided to buy a house relatively close around 2000. Around January 2006, he described to me how at the beginning of the month a long line of prospective buyers would appear on weekends whenever there was an open house in his neighborhood but by the end of January 2006 nobody would show up for an open house. I later confirmed with a friend who was in the real estate business that the bursting of the housing bubble in our area of south Florida could be specifically dated to January 2006: “It was as if someone turned off the light switch.”

BTW I majored in economics in college, and one of the basic things I learned (which Krugman repeated in his early 2000 columns) is that lowering interest rates acts a spur to the economy, specifically the housing sector which is highly interest rate sensitive, and that was one of the basic tools employed by the Fed after WWII to regulate the economy: increasing interest rates to slow economic activity and decreasing interest rates to increase economic activity. That largely explains the ebb and flow of the housing sector, which has fluctuated considerably over the years. When I started posting on Yahoo Finance Message Boards in early 2003, there were two major points I made: I was strongly opposed to the Iraq War before it started and I thought the Fed’s low interest rate policy was “insane.” I just think that Krugman’s disavowal of any responsibility for the “housing bubble,” which he was espousing in his own columns in the early 2000’s, is sheer mendacity of the highest order.

“There is no Nobel price for economy.”

I assume “price” is a typo, and you meant to write “prize.” Actually, there has been a “Nobel Prize” (so called) for economics since 1968: “The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden’s central bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, on the bank’s 300th anniversary.[2][3][4][5] Although it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is referred to along with the other Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation.[6] Winners are announced with the other Nobel Prize winners, and receive the award at the same ceremony.[2]”

Freddy Krugerman, lol

The problem with economics as a science is the same as what happens with investment strategies. Every winning investment strategy where you aren’t an insider in the sham that is the investment market (think all the sweetheart deals Warren Buffet gets that you can’t) inevitably fails miserably and unpredictably, the same for economic theories.

Take for example buy and hold. There is always somebody who is going be retiring right at the bottom of a major secular bear market. Nothing was going to save the buy and hold investor who turned 65 in 1978 unless he lived until he was 85 and what good does it do an 85 year old man to be a back in the black unless you want to punk your kids and grand kids by marrying a stripper?

It is the same with all these economic theories. Powerful people react to the times and queer the system to their own advantage. The public eventually gets trained to do something and the real way to make money is to bet against the herd.

Greenspan had a lot of success by lowering interest rates and “adding liquidity” in response to every government and market induced screw up starting with the Black Monday crash in 1987. That wrong headed move convinced everybody that Greenspan was some kind of genius. However, if the US had endured a mild recession in 1987 and the lending spigot was cut off, the S&L crisis would have been far less severe since so many fewer commercial real estate loans would have been made between 1987 and 1990.

Once the S&L crisis hit, Greenspan did his usual trick and it again seemed to work (at least for the well connected). The problem was that each time he responded to a crisis he had to lower the interest rates from what they were before. When you are starting from a point where the prime rate is 21 percent you have a long way to go before you hit zero.

I am sure there were people who realized that they were reaching a point where there were no more magic bullets left in the gun but they had been (to their minds) so successful to this point that they had to continue to dance while there was music.

I have never subscribed to the idea that economics is a “science.” In fact, in the 19th century, when the principles of economy were being developed, the phrase that was commonly used was “political economy,” which reflected the reality that economics cannot be divorced from political realities. They are closely intertwined. I also think there is a big distinction between economics and investing, although it helps to make good investment decisions if you have a good understanding of economics, such as an understanding the business cycle and knowing the history of business cycles. As far as Greenspan is concerned, I have posted numerous messages expressing my low regard for the man and his record as chairman of the Fed. As far as my economic principles are concerned, I generally subscribe to the views articulated many years ago by Milton Friedman, which is that the Fed should adjust the money supply by a fixed amount each year and then stand aside and let the economy sort things out itself without the Fed trying to micromanage the economy, because I don’t believe in central planning whether in Russia or America.

In 1998 Krugman smugly predicted this about the economic impact of the internet:

“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law” — which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants — becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.

As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly.”

http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2013/04/that-fax-machine-must-have-had-some.html

Whatever he did in 1999, you can bet that now, 16 years later, he’s reading iSteve with the rest of us.

He knows which side his challah is buttered on. It’s that simple. You think he’s going to cast his lot in with a bunch of middle American “WASP” “xenophobes” who want as tight borders for their country as Israel gets to have? What do we have to offer?

Hell, CUNY alone pays him a quarter million a year. Never mind all his other gigs. That alone puts him in the top 5% for household income.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=330

You don’t need to know science to do that well. You just need to know how to broker power and income inside NYC institutions. Say what you’re supposed to say. Marry who you’re supposed to marry. Hate whom you’re supposed to hate. Pose as superior.

most people have nothing to say to each other!

Well if only he had modified it a bit:

most people have nothing OF VALUE to say to each other!

So is Tim Wise, a jew who openly calls for white genocide. How is this relevant to Mark’s informed comment?

“So is Tim Wise, a jew who openly calls for white genocide. How is this relevant to Mark’s informed comment?”

This may come as a shock to you, but I have no idea who Tim Wise is and why you think him important. I have never discussed or even mentioned Tim Wise in any of the many posts I have made on unz.com. I have seen his name mentioned in some of the posts I have read, but I never bothered to look him up. His marital arrangement is a matter of complete indifference to me, as is the fact that he is Jewish.

But you go on and ask “How is this relevant to Mark’s informed comment?” I responded to Mark Green’s post which discussed Paul Krugman’s attitude toward the status of white people in the U.S. so I thought my little bit of information might shed some light on Krugman’s attitude. This is part of what Mark Green stated:

“Kosher liberals like Krugman go nuts when white citizens in white-majority cultures like France and the US show an interest in preserving their racial composition and advancing the interests of their founding racial stock. I can understand why Ashkenazi Jews like Krugman don’t like this, but why does he think that he can continue to depict White kinship as being evil?” ”

I don’t know what your reading comprehension is, but it appeared to me that Mark Green’s long post was devoted to Krugman’s dim view of the role of whites in America, so I thought my observation about Krugman’s marital status might shed a little light on Mark’s subject matter. What mystifies me is why my little comment has gotten your panties in a such a knot. I read any number of messages on unz.com that strike me as wrong, but I don’t bother posting a comment. But, for some reason, you felt compelled to drag in someone, Tim Wise, who was not mentioned at all in my message (nor Mark Green’s message, for that matter), of whom I don’t have a shred of knowledge about what he is famous for and then berate me for posting off-topic, where even a cursory reading of Mark’s message shows that it was indeed relevant in some minor way (that’s why I added “FWIW” at the end of my very brief message).

Where did you find that information? What I managed to find using my friend Google was a white woman economist called Robin Wells.

“Where did you find that information? What I managed to find using my friend Google was a white woman economist called Robin Wells.”

Despite appearances, his current wife Robin Wells is not white.

According to Wikipedia:
“Krugman has been married twice. His first wife Robin L. Bergman is an award-winning designer/artist. He is currently married to Robin Wells, an academic economist who has collaborated on textbooks with Krugman”

Judging from her picture, Robin Wells appears to me to be black, just as I recall reading a number of years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Wells_(economist) You have to make allowance for the fact that it is a well lit still photo. I remember a month or so ago when the President of U. of Missouri was forced to resign and was replaced by a dean who appeared from his still photo to be virtually white. Then somebody posted a video in which you could clearly see that he was black.

When I first saw pictures years ago of the great NY Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter, I couldn’t figure out what race he was. He is the child of a white mother and black father (a doctor, as I recall). It was only later that I discovered the full story. The same with current NBA basketball star Blake Griffin, who has reddish hair and looks white. I have posted several times about Clarence King, the brilliant close friend of former SOS John Hay and Henry Adams. Unknown to them, he had secretly married a black woman who had been born a slave by passing himself off to her as a black man who worked as a Pullman porter and traveled a lot. He left four surviving children when he died in 1901. The two daughters were able to pass as whites and married white men. The two sons were drafted in WWI as black men. I haven’t seen any pictures of the four children to see what resemblances they shared and what differences existed.