Paul Krugman, what a guy. He’s the Nobel Prize winning economist who called for a fake alien invasion of the United States to spur a World War II-style defense build-up. The BBC wheeled him on this morning and salivated over his every word as he repeated his assault on the Coalition’s alleged austerity drive. Paul’s one of those economists who reckons you can spend your way out of debt but the BBC just love him. Quite. By way of balance, may I direct you to this excellent piece on FOX News which examines just how woeful Krugman’s record has been when it comes to forecasting on the economy! Enjoy.
ALIEN INVASION
Bookmark the permalink.
They really do have everything ass-backwards. They give Krugman credibility, when in reality even the likes of David Icke has a better forecasting record than Krugman! Both come out with Bizarre alien theories.
Well as regards balance, it certainly is not coming from the BBC.
What an unchallenged load of Lefty tripe and just to confirm the left wing bias, the closing remark from Evan Davis ” If Romney wins you’ll be leaving America ” Titter titter…titter…….girly laugh from Davis.
Did you hear the earlier girly giggles as he imitated the ‘pips’ when it was only 14 minutes past 7? What an utter prat. His increasing air of playful frivolity (bordering on euphoria when he has the chance to interview the likes of Krugman) more than coincides with his party’s continuing lead in the polls. The epitome of B-BBC and probably their most irritating ‘presenter’.
Harrumphrys and Naughtie are appallingly partisan but at least they’re otherwise up to the job, Davis is just lightweight. Good thing for him there’s so much ‘gay’ mafia at the BBC. One very much doubts he’d have his gig otherwise.
I’m sure if he ever is ‘moved on’, Lord Smith will have a job for him at the ASA harrassing Christian pro-marriage groups.
To be fair to Davis, his programme “The Bottom Line” (don’t be vulgar) is interviews at length with businessmen. It is relaxed, usually serious, and often informative.
The cobbler should stick to his last.
“Ne supra crepidam.sutor judicaret”
is, I believe, the Latin original.
Which translates as “Cobbler – no higher than the sandal”
ie Stick to what to what you know. Don’t get above yourself. You are speaking above your station.
Davis is out of his depth. He is AWFUL on the Today programme,
But no worse than the rest of those lefties.
He was spoonfed with the question “What would happen if we borrowed another 2% of GDP to fund a lot of new spending”.
As RCE said on a previous open thread – the interview sounded like a verbal blowjob. Too early in the morning !
I had commented on that Open Thread that the Today programme kicked off with in interview with Tubs Mardell who patronised Romney and then came out with an outright lie – “Most pundits think Obama will scrape by” Just shows what a narrow range of pundits Mardell follows.
Oh – and was that a sideways dig at Romney’s Mormonism towards the end of the programme ?
Loony Krugman was allowed to get away with the absurd claim that things are going pretty well in the US. Really ? How about listening to what the US people think – they seem to feel that the US is going down the tubes :
http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
Nor was he challenged when advocating yet more public spending as to how he would get the economy back into balance once it had ‘recovered’, especially as the public sector is already well out of kilter after Brown’s spending splurge on an extra 1 million jobs, huge hikes in public sector pay and no attempt to address the £1 trillion pensions deficit. It was like listening to a couple of passengers on the deck of the Titanic discussing the need for a refurbishment of its ballroom.
Davis couldn’t stop challenging Niall Ferguson, but gave Krugman the gentlest of interviews. Softball after softball. And he’s never been a fiscal hawk, even when times were good.
Of course, Davis is also a Left-wing economist, so we know where he stands on whether or not the government needs to borrow and spend more.
“Left Wing Economist” ia an oxymoron
That link is APPALLING. He is writing STRONG OPINIONS on econo-political matters – while on the Today team.
Bias -what bias ?
When a personally well liked President with the propaganda big guns of most of the MSM blasting away for him is running neck and neck against an uninspiring Republican contender, how can things be going well? Not a question one will be hearing soon on ‘Labour Today’.
Mr Krugman is essentially a ‘neoclassical’ economist who assumes away the instabilities of an economy, assuming that there will always be some general ‘equilibrium’ in an economy.
He cannot explain the dynamics of change in an economy. Until recently, he assumed away any problems for an economy associated with the role of debts and banks.
I read Krugman daily in the IHT (ooh get me) and his columns are more devoted to shrieking against the GOP than they are to commenting on economics so we can certainly see why the BBC like him.
I don’t recall Krugman railing against the excesses in ‘the good years’ so I can’t see why he should be any more prescient now.
although Krugman is a winner of the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” (worth noting that it is commonly but inaccurately referred to as the Nobel Prize for Economics), his speciality is nothing to do with macroeconomics, fiscal or monetary policy – he won the prize for his work on Trade Theory. Strangely the Beeb relies heavily on Keynesians and doesn’t call quite so much on people who support the theories of Hayek or Friedman, both winners and both specialists in the relevant area.
An excellent point ! Krugman is just a bloviating partisan masquerading as a real expert, exactly the sort the BBC likes.
He seems to do OK for himself :
http://www.celebrityhousepictures.com/paul-krugman.php
Didn’t Friedman say that you can have a welfare state or open borders but you can’t have both? Someone should have told Bliar, Brown, Darling, Cameron, Clegg, Cable etc etc.
I didn’t catch the whole interview, but I’ll take a wild shot in the dark that he wasn’t introduced under his full title of ‘Former Enron Adviser Paul Krugman’?
So Paul Krugman is spreading his message abroad and being given an easy ride by fawning Beeboids. I happened to bookmark one of his NYT articles from January. It’s an example of his self-delusion:
“Last month” he writes, “President Obama gave a speech invoking the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt on behalf of progressive ideals — and Republicans were not happy. Mitt Romney, in particular, insisted that where Roosevelt believed that “government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities,” Mr. Obama believes that “government should create equal outcomes,” that we should have a society where “everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk.” As many people were quick to point out, this portrait of the president as radical redistributionist was pure fiction. What hasn’t been as widely noted, however, is that Mr. Romney’s picture of himself as a believer in a level playing field is just as fictional. Where is the evidence that he or his party cares at all about equality of opportunity?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
So Obama is not a redistributionist? Remember O’s “spread the money around” comment to “Joe the Plumber” in the one moment of truth and light in his hope and change 2008 campaign.
“As many people are quick to point out” Krugman claims…who? Presumably these are the people who live in Krugman’s head.
It should be pointed out at the start of every media interview Krugman is a full blooded Obamatron. He and the New York Times are fully behind Obama’s re-election bid. One assumes the recommendation to embrace him without question came from the American bureau and O’s representative on earth Mark Mardell.
Meanwhile, is there any sign of Ed Klein on the BBC? His book skewering Obama and raising important ethical issues is being ignored by the main stream media and yet – AND YET! – “The Amateur” is now #1 in the non-fiction lists at the – YUP – New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/overview.html
Something is happening at grass roots level that is not being reported. William F Buckley famously said “I’d rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard.” The present administration aka the Dons of Harvard (and in Krugman’s case Princeton) have had their day.
Louis
There are some very serious revelations in Klein’s book from the reports I have seen. Including his 3-hour interview with Jeremiah Wright and the suggestion that he was offered $150,000 by a close friend of Obama to keep his mouth shut during the rest of the 2008 election.
But as you say – deliberately ignored by most of the media. I bet the BBC doesn’t run it as Book of The Week, even though it would make fascinating listening !
John, for your entertainment:
Louis
I had seen that Fox interview earlier – explosive stuff, real news that is being studiously ignored by the liberal media, including the BBC. It makes all the Leveson stuff so far look really tame.
That’s my problem with Krugman. As well as being ideologically tunnel-visioned with his economic theories, he’s more of a journalist than a full time economist.
Krugman is dining out on his Nobel prize while adding very little to the debate other than liberal dogma.
“Krugman ‘Knocked out of Neoclassical Orbit’ by Steve Keen’s Meteoric Rise! ”
-‘RT’ 30 mins approx video, April 2012).
Krugman “Knocked out of Neoclassical Orbit” by Steve Keen’s Meteoric Rise!
While Krugman seems to cling to unrealistic ‘neoclassical model’ in economics, Keen is something of a ‘Marxist’; and, of course, INBBC’s Comrade Mason has set up a programme at the (discredited) London School of Islamic Economics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01j5h51
Given Comrade Mason’s political predilection for the discredited Islamic London School of Economics, and his apparently untold new expertise in economics, will he put on a programme debunking Islamic Economics?
Of course not: nothing to upset the ‘left’-Islam political alliance.
For Mason to censor:
1.) ‘Money jihad’ –
http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/all-muslims-duty-bound-to-join-jihad-with-money-6/
2.) ‘About Shariah Finance’
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/about-shariah-finance/
A book which will NOT be in BBC-NUJ CoJo library:-
“Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism”
by Timur Kuran
Unusually for the BBC though, Krugman had already been blasted into orbit by Niall Ferguson earlier in the show.
Evan was therefore able to tell us all that the Nobel winning Krugman would be on the show later-you know, just in case any of us might give the mighty Niall any credit.
Krugman came across as an arrogant blowhard…and the Nobel Prize bit was pathetic….did`nt Obama get one, so it`s hardly worth a pitcher of warm spit now is it?
Al Gore got a Nobel peace prize for his contribution to enhancing the scientific fraud in a Climate Change film and Obama was the first person to get a Nobel peace prize while at war and without giving him any time to justify receiving the award by removing troops from Afghanistan.
I always assumed that Gore’s Nobel was a consolation prize for having the election “stolen” from him, and Krugman’s prize was for writing all those anti-Bush polemics.
Related…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100017507/krugman-please-make-me-chaste-but-not-now-not-ever/
———————————
“He pretends to be an impartial economic analyst of events, but he is not. He is as much an idealogue as the right wing conservatives he mocks.”
Modesty is not one of Krugman’s virtues. People say “you think everyone who disagrees with you is a mendacious idiot”, he told the Today programme. “No, actually only the ones who are”, he went on. This at least had the merit of being quite funny, so perhaps he should re-invent himself as a standup comedian. This would be a better use of his talents than constantly urging us to engage in more of what brought us to this pretty pass in the first place. Let’s borrow our way out of debt – whoever heard of a sillier oxymoron?
————————————
Ed Balls doesn’t think it silly or an oxymoron, apparently.
Silly morons.
DV
Thank’s for the picture above your prose.
It takes me back to collecting them, I think they came with a small strip of pink bubble gum.
Can’t remember if the BBC were left-wing biased about everything in those days, if they weren’t, they have certainly made up for it ever since.
I missed the start of this interview, but when I heard Evan simpering at an American who wanted massive government spending to “stimulate” the economy (it certainly stimulated Evan, who must like his men with beards), I knew it had to be Krugman. The interview was an embarrassment, it made the 1950s cliche interview (“Is there anything you’d like to tell us Prime Minister”) look like Robin Day versus John Nott. In other words, par for the course for the Today programme.
here are some figures the Obamaphiles at the beeb will studiously overlook….
JAN 09 TODAY
Avg. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S. $1.83 $3.44
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) $43..48 $99..02
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) $38..74 $91..38
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL $3.56 $6.33
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL $9.66 $13.75
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb.Fob $13..37 $35..39
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall 7.6% 9.4%
Unemployment rate, blacks 12.6% 15.8%
Number of unemployed 1,616,000 14,485,000
Real median household income $50,112 $49,777
long-term unemployed 2,600,000 6,400,000
People in poverty in U.S. 39,800,000 43,600,000
National debt, in trillions $10..627 $14..052
how’s that for change,Barry?
sorry-that didn’t transfer too well
first figure is Jan 09,second is today
Sickening figures, much of it avoidable. I think this is the “coherent narrative” Mardell says the Romney campaign is lacking. The Beeboids will blame the Tea Party movement for not letting President Choom spend us out of it.
Unfortunately for us it is economists like Krugman who have been lauded and listened to and praised, it is the likes of the LSE who have the ear of the ruling class. Everything they touch goes wrong, everything they do turns rotten, and its for a very good reason, they believe that to defeat capitalism they must involve themselves in its defeat by sabotage from within, the likes of Krugman are still fighting the economic war of the early 20th century between the then new Marxist narrative and the free West capitalism like some Jap soldier on a forgotten island.
Interfere with the free markets to such an extent it fails and then blame capitalism for that failure, its working like a charm so far. This is where the BBC comes in, a worldwide platform to spread myths and deceptions and a false reality.
‘Mail’ article on KRUGMAN:
“Increase government spending? Not when we’re already borrowing the equivalent of the health budget every year”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2152280/Increase-government-spending-Not-borrowing-equivalent-health-budget-year.html#ixzz1wNy1LzZi
He performed fantastically on Newsnight against an opposition apparently flabbergasted at having to defend their beloved austerity. It was refreshing, instead of the normal Newsnight commentators having the same debate, there was someone with real credibility really challenging the British establishment.
I’m more than sure that Tories could scream about his insanity until the proverbial cows return to their homestead, but it made sense. He finally dispelled the myth that the economy is comparable to a household budget, which Tories love to put about. The real bizarreness came from Jon Moulton, claiming that Estonia was a credible economy to devalue against. I think those who thought Krugman lost that debate are in the minority, and in love with austerity.
What austerity?
Predictable.
So no answer?
Is it worth the time justifying an answer like that with a response?
This is the problem with your contribution here so far: no evidence provided, no reasoned debate. You’ve made all sorts of ad homs and sneers from on high, but haven’t addressed a single issue on a factual basis.
If you’re above everyone here, why do you even bother? Why come in here in the first place? What could you possibly hope to accomplish besides getting a kick out of riling up a few people?
I haven’t made any ad homs until I had them used on me, actually. I made sure, doing AS Critical Thinking. And I believe I have.
Austerity has caused a recession here. Europe’s not doing so well because of it. Spending is cut and unemployment is up – it’s not working. It’s all very well saying ‘What austerity?’ but what’s the point in denying it when it is a fact of our time? It doesn’t measure up to the austerity of the 1920s or 30s, but we don’t live there any more.
And why do I come here, hmm? Why do you watch the BBC? Why bother when it’s so full of hate for you? Surely it’s not worth the toil. Someone on here said that they decided BBC news was below them. I want to understand your mindset, laugh, and provoke. I see no harm. It’s part of the point of this whole blog is it not? I present a different point of view which you seem unable to deal with, and you do seem to enjoy patting each other on the back for your whimsical remarks, for your hatred of the BBC and for your general unhappiness with the world.
Thank you for admitting you’ve come here to mock and “provoke”. In other words, just looking for a fight.
Still, since you seem to thing you’re suffering from cuts, what do you say about the Office of Budget Responsibility saying that spending in real terms has risen in each of the last two years? Real austerity hasn’t happened yet.
The only reason for budget reductions in some areas is that the government can’t go on spending like before, so some things had to be reduced in order to keep spending in other areas. Your government is actually allowing overseas “aid” to increase, at the expense of, for example, your police force. That’s not real austerity. Just like in the US, continuing to spend like it’s 2007 is simply impossible. How the budget reductions are handled depends on who’s doing the handling. The real, deep cuts everyone’s talking about haven’t really happened yet.
The reason I’m unable to so far to deal with your “different point of view” is that, until now, there hasn’t been any actual substance to any of it. It’s just been a series of general opinions. You’ve refused to read any evidence I’ve tried to present, and refused to debate on substance any instance presented here of BBC bias. Make a substantial point on facts, rather than just expressing general opinion, and maybe we’ll get some where. Your previous comments have included statements about my mindset and that of others here, so you seem already to have decided what it is. So I’m not sure I buy your claim that you’re just trying to understand it.
Tell you what: rather than continue this little game, next time I make a comment or post claiming bias at the BBC, fisk it. Tell me exactly where I’ve gone wrong, which facts I’ve missed, and how there is no bias. Be specific, address actual points with substance. Saying, “There’s no bias there, you’re and idiot, if you can’t see that, its not worth addressing,” won’t be enough.
Ask Sinead Rocks or Stuart Hughes or Jenny Clarke, or the various blogs and publications which link to this one if it’s all just whimsical remarks.
One wonders whether Beeboids actually read their own reports.
While BBC-NUJ-Labour demand more public spending, the economic consequences of such a mantra are there for all to see in the regions of Spain.
“Why Spain’s regions owe so much money.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18277681
“Spain can’t even control spending in its regions –
so how will Brussels control spending in Portugal, Spain, or Italy?”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100017577/spain-cant-even-control-spending-in-its-regions-so-how-will-brussels-control-spending-in-portugal-spain-or-italy/
“The most pro-European thing to do now is reject the euro”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/9277943/The-most-pro-European-thing-to-do-now-is-reject-the-euro.html
SALFORD.
Labour council on BBC-NUJ’s doorstep:
“The mayor, his deputy and THIRTEEN assistants… how Salford’s new leader has failed to cut the cost of running the city with officers for ‘international relations’ and ‘humanegment'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152731/The-mayor-deputy-THIRTEEN-assistants–Salfords-new-leader-failed-cut-cost-running-city.html#ixzz1wWcEGTs9
The Daily Mail, always there for accurate, unbiased journalism at its finest.
And the inaccuracies of the ‘Daily Mail’ report are, according to publicly financed BBC-NUJ, are?
Careful… you are moving into factual areas.
This can confuse some happier dealing in beliefs.
I’m just saying, I love the Daily Mail, it’s not biased at all. I’m going to get Mr Guest Who his own show, he’s really very funny.
You still provide no counter-evidence to ‘Daily Mail’ report on Salford’s Labour mayor.
Oo, spiffy, a fan. But too early yet to know if a genuine one or something less pleasant. Guessing the ‘not appreciated’ flounce is on a thread by thread basis, so let’s see what we can do here too.
So, AMWBC, how’s about answering folks’ pertinent questions, as the ducking and diving is already looking a bit less than credible.
The Daily Mail is the worst newspaper this country produces. I do not read it and I do not wish to read it. That is biased, but in a way acceptable to you people.
The DM is not the best example of the news publisher’s art, I do concede, but like the BBC, it may be best to actually experience it before weighing in in critique.
Oh, and I think most now, from MSM to blogs to even Diane Abbott with a full ‘get out of anything free’ pass, have twigged that using the words ‘you people’ while flailing about losing arguments probably isn’t going to end well.
Oh I have experienced it, don’t worry in the slightest my dear. I never want to wade through that sewage again.
David Preiser (USA) says:
“Still, since you seem to thing you’re suffering from cuts, what do you say about the Office of Budget Responsibility saying that spending in real terms has risen in each of the last two years? Real austerity hasn’t happened yet.”
It is true that total government spending has increased; but almost all of that spending is due to debt interest and rising unemployment.
At the same time, in the year after this gov’s first budget; there has been a 14% increase in VAT (sales tax); 400,000 jobs lost in the public sector; and a cut in capital spending of 25% (9 billion pounds).
The claim that; “there haven’t been any cuts”, or ;”austerity”, because total government spending has increased are self-evidently untrue. Or haven’t you noticed?
Dez,
If it’s not too much trouble, can we go back to the 14% increase in Value Added Tax, what my dear boy is your solution to easing debt ?
Is it -% or + %
Oh please do tell !
“what my dear boy is your solution to easing debt ?”
Blimey, who knows? All proposed solutions seem to be based on little more than blind faith.
But out of all the possible ways to increase tax, increasing VAT seems the most repressive.
It might not make much difference to someone earning a decent wage, but for the poorest people in the UK (some pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed) it’s the difference between replacing a worn-out pair of shoes and paying the gas bill.
Well, thank you for clearing that up !
That’s exactly the problem. It’s an unfair way of trying to reduce the deficit. Why not collect the billions in unpaid tax by big companies? When I last read any figures there was around £126 Billion in uncollected tax, which would go a long way to filling the holes in spending. Much better than blind austerity.