Paul Krugman, "Hillary Clinton Gets Gored": Want to Vomit This Morning?

Tweet

You need to vomit this morning? I have the answer. Read Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton Gets Gored," in which this Nobel Prize winner, who in 2011 promoted the virtues of Occupy Wall Street, attests to Hillary Clinton's character. Yes, I'm serious. Krugman writes:

"Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

. . . .

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation 'raises questions.'

But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, 'no.'"

"[V]ery clearly, 'no'"? Consider an August 30, 2016 New York Times editorial entitled "Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation," which informs us:

"Mrs. Clinton became involved in State Department deals and negotiations that also involved foundation donors or board members. She prompted multiple investigations with an arrangement that allowed Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff at the State Department and now vice chairwoman of her campaign, to be paid simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm run by Doug Band, the former adviser to Mr. Clinton who helped create the foundation — and who sent emails to Ms. Abedin seeking favors for foundation donors.

The newly disclosed emails show that some foundation donors and friends, like Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain, used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton.

. . . .

The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity."

Oh, those nasty right-wingers from the Times editorial board, who question the "tangled alliances and operational opacity" of the Clinton Foundation, are obviously up to their nefarious tricks again!

Krugman concludes:

"And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president; Mrs. Clinton’s speaking style and body language aren’t. George W. Bush’s policy lies gave me a much better handle on who he was than all the up-close-and-personal reporting of 2000, and the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.

In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo."

A "pro tip"? Got it! Krugman is now also an expert on "speaking style and body language." Speaking style? Apparently Krugman likes the way Hillary nods her head for hours at a time, like a bobble head doll. But more to the point, how does one judge Hillary's speaking style, when it's been 275 days since her last press conference? It is a bit akin to a quarterback taking a knee to run out the clock, but with more than two months to go before the election, this strategy could prove ill-advised.

Hillary's character? Needless to say, Krugman couldn't bring himself to mention that Hillary, a stickler for detail, told the FBI 39 times that she couldn't "recall" details concerning her email practices, or how her aides destroyed her mobile devices with a hammer.

I'm no fan of Trump, whose little fingers shouldn't be allowed anywhere the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal, but Hillary a paragon of honesty, integrity and transparency? Yup, Krugman's op-ed is the perfect emetic.

Paul Krugman, "The 8 A.M. Call": Hillary Is an Economic Genius!

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The 8 A.M. Call," Paul Krugman informs us that "[b]arring the political equivalent of a meteor strike" (Is an FBI recommendation to indict Hillary the equivalent of a meteor strike?), Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, and she will run against either Trump or Cruz. Krugman says of each of these potential candidates (my emphasis in red):

• Clinton: "Mrs. Clinton isn’t just the most knowledgeable, well-informed candidate in this election, she’s arguably the best-prepared candidate on matters economic ever to run for president."
• Trump: "I doubt that anyone will be shocked if I say that Mr. Trump doesn’t know much about economic policy, or for that matter any kind of policy. He still seems to imagine, for example, that China is taking advantage of America by keeping its currency weak — which was true once upon a time, but bears no resemblance to current reality."
• Cruz: "He chose, as his senior economic adviser, Phil Gramm — an architect of financial deregulation who helped set the stage for the 2008 crisis, then dismissed warnings of recession when that crisis came, calling America a 'nation of whiners.' Mr. Cruz is, in other words, a man of firm economic convictions — convictions that are utterly divorced from reality and impervious to evidence, to a degree that’s unusual even among Republicans.

Got it: Only Republicans are given to fanciful economic thinking. However, it was none other than Krugman who wrote in an October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's trillion dollar coin proposal, which even Jon Stewart labeled a "stupid f#cking idea."

Or stated otherwise, there are those who might justifiably question Krugman's grip on economic reality.

But maybe Paul is correct in his claim that Hillary is the "best-prepared candidate on matters economic ever to run for president." After all, she has proven extraordinarily adept over the past few years at milking the system for millions of dollars by lecturing to multinational corporations anxious to gain the benefit of her economic acumen. (Of course, there was no possibility that her lectures amounted to one big influence peddling scheme.) And then there was the "expertise" she displayed by turning a $1,000 investment in commodities futures into a gain of nearly $100,000 within 10 months. (Here, too, there was no chance of foul play.) Hillary's just one heck of an economic wizard.

Cruz's economic adviser, Phil Gramm, helped set the stage for the 2008 crisis? Oh really? And all this while I thought that it was President Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall, thereby setting the stage for the 2008 economic debacle.

And so it goes: On Sunday, we were told by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that Hillary doesn't lie much given the records of other politicians, and today we have Paul Krugman telling us that Hillary is an economic genius. Spare me!

Paul Krugman, "Cranks on Top": Psychiatric Tests for All Presidential Candidates!

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Cranks on Top," Paul Krugman begins by savaging Ted Cruz and Donald Trump:

"The thing is, one of the two men who may still have a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee is a scary character. His notions on foreign policy seem to boil down to the belief that America can bully everyone into doing its bidding, and that engaging in diplomacy is a sign of weakness. His ideas on domestic policy are deeply ignorant and irresponsible, and would be disastrous if put into effect.

The other man, of course, has very peculiar hair."

But Krugman saves most of his venom for Marco Rubio:

"In short, Mr. Rubio is peddling crank economics. What’s interesting, however, is why. You see, he’s not pandering to ignorant voters; he’s pandering to an ignorant elite."

Mind you, this denunciation of Marco is coming from someone who wrote in an October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Mention by Krugman of the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton, the effect of its repeal on the US economy, or Hillary's position on its reinstatement? Not a chance. Again, consider what Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, has to say about this matter:

"Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. 'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one."

I agree with Reich. Moreover, it is no wonder why Hillary is unwilling to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms.

More to the point, are we to understand that Hillary, who claimed she came under sniper fire in Bosnia, is not a "crank"? I proposed in my prior blog entry that all remaining US presidential candidates undergo psychiatric testing and that the results be published. Indeed, let's see who are the "cranks"! I am confident the list extends to both parties.

Paul Krugman, "Varieties of Voodoo": Nobel Hypocrisy

Tweet

Again lashing out at Bernie Sanders's economic policies in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Varieties of Voodoo," Paul Krugman writes:

"Mr. Sanders is calling for a large expansion of the U.S. social safety net, which is something I would like to see, too. But the problem with such a move is that it would probably create many losers as well as winners — a substantial number of Americans, mainly in the upper middle class, who would end up paying more in additional taxes than they would gain in enhanced benefits.

By endorsing outlandish economic claims, the Sanders campaign is basically signaling that it doesn’t believe its program can be sold on the merits, that it has to invoke a growth miracle to minimize the downsides of its vision. It is, in effect, confirming its critics’ worst suspicions."

. . . .

"So Mr. Sanders really needs to crack down on his campaign’s instinct to lash out. More than that, he needs to disassociate himself from voodoo of the left — not just because of the political risks, but because getting real is or ought to be a core progressive value."

"Getting real" should be a "core progressive value"? Yeah, right. Consider the following suggestion from Krugman in his October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Krugman is a pragmatic progressive, a sober-minded liberal? Spare me. (I don't even want to bother relating to Krugman's absurd contention in his opinion piece of today's date that "Obamacare, which conservatives insisted would be a budget-buster, actually ended up being significantly cheaper than projected.")

Paul Krugman, "The Crazies and the Con Man": Paul Ryan Is a "Con Man"?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Crazies and the Con Man," Paul Krugman again takes aim at Paul Ryan, who is being considered as a possible replacement for John Boehner as speaker of the House:

"What makes Mr. Ryan so special? The answer, basically, is that he’s the best con man they’ve got. His success in hoodwinking the news media and self-proclaimed centrists in general is the basis of his stature within his party. Unfortunately, at least from his point of view, it would be hard to sustain the con game from the speaker’s chair.

To understand Mr. Ryan’s role in our political-media ecosystem, you need to know two things. First, the modern Republican Party is a post-policy enterprise, which doesn’t do real solutions to real problems. Second, pundits and the news media really, really don’t want to face up to that awkward reality."

"Real solutions to real problems"? Consider the following suggestion from Krugman in his October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's 2013 proposal that the federal government should mint a $1 trillion platinum coin to eliminate Republican meddling with Obama's spending spree:

"Here’s how it would work: The Treasury would mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion (or many coins with smaller values; it doesn’t really matter). This coin would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve, which would credit the sum to the government’s account. And the government could then write checks against that account, continuing normal operations without issuing new debt.

. . . .

[I]t’s the president’s duty to do whatever it takes, no matter how offbeat or silly it may sound, to defuse this hostage situation. Mint that coin!"

Krugman, "The Conscience of a Liberal," is calling Ryan a "con man"? Spare me!

Paul Krugman, "Nobody Said That": What Happened to Occupy Wall Street, Paul?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Nobody Said That," Paul Krugman takes to task pundits whose predictions are proven wrong over the course of time. Krugman writes:

"Imagine yourself as a regular commentator on public affairs — maybe a paid pundit, maybe an supposed expert in some area, maybe just an opinionated billionaire. You weigh in on a major policy initiative that’s about to happen, making strong predictions of disaster. The Obama stimulus, you declare, will cause soaring interest rates; the Fed’s bond purchases will “debase the dollar” and cause high inflation; the Affordable Care Act will collapse in a vicious circle of declining enrollment and surging costs.

But nothing you predicted actually comes to pass. What do you do?

You might admit that you were wrong, and try to figure out why. But almost nobody does that; we live in an age of unacknowledged error."

Krugman's conclusion:

"And there’s also a moral issue involved. Refusing to accept responsibility for past errors is a serious character flaw in one’s private life. It rises to the level of real wrongdoing when policies that affect millions of lives are at stake."

Fascinating. Now consider the following prediction from Krugman in his October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

So where is there any mention of Krugman's prediction concerning Occupy Wall Street in his opinion piece of today's date? For whatever reason, I couldn't find it.

Paul Krugman, "Rube Goldberg Survives": Time to Celebrate Obamacare?

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? Krugman's celebration of OWS proved premature to say the least.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Rube Goldberg Survives" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/opinion/krugman-rube-goldberg-survives.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Krugman would have us believe that Obamacare has also reached a "turning point" and that the "7.1 million and counting signups is a huge victory for reform." Krugman concludes:

"So my advice to reform supporters is, go ahead and celebrate. Oh, and feel free to ridicule right-wingers who confidently predicted doom.

Clearly, there’s a lot of work ahead, and we can count on the news media to play up every hitch and glitch as if it were an existential disaster. But Rube Goldberg has survived; health reform has won."

Of course, no mention by Krugman of past Obama administration promises (http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Health_Insurance_Reform_PDF_1.pdf):

"Reform isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

And no mention by Krugman of the percentage of young people among the 7.1 enrollees, who are necessary to keep pricing down.

Also no mention by Krugman of how many enrollees have paid their premiums.

But perhaps most important, Krugman fails to relate to the fact that the underlying rationale of Obamacare was to provide insurance to between 31 million to 47 million people without insurance (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/03/06/the-obamacare-disaster-is-now-undeniable/). The purpose was not to cancel the insurance of persons already having plans and force them to enroll in the system.

Celebrate Obamacare? Krugman's exuberance is again premature.

Paul Krugman, "Health, Work, Lies": Nothing Wrong With a Disincentive to Work

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a report detailing the anticipated effects of the Affordable Care Act:

"The ACA’s largest impact on labor markets will probably occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full effect and overall economic output nears its maximum sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive."

Or stated otherwise by Douglas Elmendorf, Head of the CBO (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370398/cbo-head-obamacare-creates-disincentive-people-work-andrew-johnson):

"By providing a subsidy, these people are better off, but they do have less of an incentive to work."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Health, Work, Lies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/opinion/krugman-health-work-lies.html?ref=opinion), Paul Krugman tries to help the Obama administration defuse this bombshell:

"It has always been clear that health reform will induce some Americans to work less. Some people will, for example, retire earlier because they no longer need to keep working to keep their health insurance. Others will reduce their hours to spend more time with their children because insurance is no longer contingent on holding a full-time job. More subtly, the incentive to work will be somewhat reduced by health insurance subsidies that fall as your income rises."

Americans "will reduce their hours to spend more time with their children"? Yeah, right.

Krugman's conclusion:

"And now we have a fairly innocuous technical estimate misrepresented as a tale of massive economic damage."

Creating a disincentive to work does not constitute massive economic damage? Remarkable! But then what should you expect from a Nobel Prize winning economist who told us (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html):

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Thanks, Paul, for telling us how successful Occupy Wall Street Obamacare will be, but once again, let's agree not to agree.

Paul Krugman, "Delusions of Failure": Yup, Obamacare Has All the Potential of Occupy Wall Street

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? Is there anyone more delusional than this Nobelist?

Well, Krugman is now defending Obama's State of the Union address in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Delusions of Failure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/opinion/krugman-delusions-of-failure.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0). Needless to say, no mention by Krugman of how Obama told a shameless lie concerning a purported foreign policy success during his SOTU last week:

"American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve – a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear."

Obama, of course, was obfuscating the truth. As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "U.S. accuses Syria of stalling on chemical arms handover" by Lesley Wroughton and Matt Spetalnick(http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130):

"The United States on Thursday accused Syria of dragging its feet on giving up its chemical arms, putting at risk a deal to remove such weapons of mass destruction from the country as it splits apart in a chaotic civil war.

President Barack Obama this week touted the chemical weapons agreement as one of the few U.S. diplomatic achievements on Syria, but the State Department said just 4 percent of Syria's deadliest chemical agents has been shipped out of the country for destruction at sea.

The United States has few good choices to force President Bashar al-Assad to comply."

And now we are learning that Syrian mass murderer Assad (John Kerry's "dear friend") is moving his chemical weapons stockpiles to "Alawite enclaves on the western coast of Syria" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Home/Assad-armed-to-the-teeth-stockpiling-weapons-of-mass-destruction-340081).

Needless to say, no one in the Obama administration is now asking why we should trust Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei to uphold his end of the "bargain" involving the purported agreement (never disclosed to the American public) with Obama to "dismantle" (Iran is already saying that nothing is to be "dismantled") Iran's nuclear weapons development program, when Assad, Iran's surrogate, is openly flouting his obligation to destroy his chemical weapons stockpile.

Yes, I know, Krugman isn't interested in foreign policy and would only have us consider Obamacare. Krugman writes:

"Everyone knows about the disastrous rollout, but that was months ago. Since then, health reform has been steadily making up lost ground."

"Steadily making up lost ground"? Yeah, right. As now being reported in a Washington Post article entitled "HealthCare.gov can’t handle appeals of enrollment errors" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthcaregov-cant-handle-appeals-of-enrollment-errors/2014/02/02/bbf5280c-89e2-11e3-916e-e01534b1e132_story.html?hpid=z1) by Amy Goldstein:

"Tens of thousands of people who discovered that HealthCare.gov made mistakes as they were signing up for a health plan are confronting a new roadblock: The government cannot yet fix the errors.

Roughly 22,000 Americans have filed appeals with the government to try to get mistakes corrected, according to internal government data obtained by The Washington Post. They contend that the computer system for the new federal online marketplace charged them too much for health insurance, steered them into the wrong insurance program or denied them coverage entirely.

For now, the appeals are sitting, untouched, inside a government computer."

Now how's that for steady progress? Obamacare is plainly showing all the cogency and staying power of OWS. Atta boy, Paul! You tell 'em!

Paul Krugman, "Fiscal Fever Breaks": Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better!

Remember how Paul Krugman once wrote concerning Occupy Wall Street (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html):

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's trillion dollar coin proposal, which even Jon Stewart labeled a "stupid f#cking idea" (see: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/jon_stewart_responds_to_krugman_platinum_coin_is_still_a_stupid_fcking_idea/).

Well today, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Fiscal Fever Breaks" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/opinion/krugman-fiscal-fever-breaks.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Krugman would have us know that the US has been "suffering from fiscal fever: the insistence by virtually the entire political and media establishment that budget deficits were our most important and urgent economic problem, even though the federal government could borrow at incredibly low interest rates." Krugman concludes by informing us:

"But while policy remains terrible, we’re finally starting to talk about real issues like inequality, not a fake fiscal crisis. And that has to be a move in the right direction."

Got it: The $17.3 trillion of debt owed by the US federal government can now be ignored, because the US can borrow at low interest rates. Who cares if this debt will never be paid back?

And who cares that the US owes much of this money to China, which just happens to lead the world in capital punishment. Capital punishment? Oh yes, that's the thing the New York Times editorial board just by chance is also denouncing today (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/opinion/the-slow-demise-of-capital-punishment.html?ref=opinion). Who cares if the US is in hock to a nation where anything remotely approaching "equality" does not exist.

Fiscal fever has broken? Yeah, right. Let's see what happens when the true cost of Obamacare becomes known. Ultimately, in the name of equality, someone is going to have to pay for this fiasco.

We're finally talking again about "inequality"? Does this mean that Krugman is again ready to endorse the tenets, including anti-Semitism, of Occupy Wall Street?

Which brings to mind George Orwell's "Animal Farm," where we learned that even in would-be utopian societies, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Paul Krugman, "Addicted to the Apocalypse": An Asteroid or an Earthquake?

Do you like a good science fiction movie? I do, particularly owing to their marvelous special effects. For example, the tsunami depicted at the beginning of "Hereafter" (2010) was overpowering.

And then there are the disaster films involving asteroid collisions and earthquakes.

But note the difference between an asteroid collision and an earthquake. Although both of these phenomena can have catastrophic consequences, an asteroid collision can be predicted in advance, owing to its course and speed. On the other hand, whereas we might know that another earthquake will ultimately hit San Francisco owing to its proximity to the San Andreas fault, we can't say when.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Addicted to the Apocalypse" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/opinion/krugman-addicted-to-the-apocalypse.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman mocks those warning of an "oft-prophesied, never-arriving debt crisis." Krugman concludes:

"Look at Japan, a country that, like America, has its own currency and borrows in that currency, and has much higher debt relative to G.D.P. than we do. Since taking office, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has, in effect, engineered exactly the kind of loss of confidence the debt worriers fear — that is, he has persuaded investors that deflation is over and inflation lies ahead, which reduces the attractiveness of Japanese bonds. And the effects on the Japanese economy have been entirely positive! Interest rates are still low, because people expect the Bank of Japan (the equivalent of our Federal Reserve) to keep them low; the yen has fallen, which is a good thing, because it make Japanese exports more competitive. And Japanese economic growth has actually accelerated.

Why, then, should we fear a debt apocalypse here? Surely, you may think, someone in the debt-apocalypse community has offered a clear explanation. But nobody has.

So the next time you see some serious-looking man in a suit declaring that we’re teetering on the precipice of fiscal doom, don’t be afraid. He and his friends have been wrong about everything so far, and they literally [sic] have no idea what they’re talking about."

Debt, which hasn't yet sunk Japan, can't sink a nation? Oh really? Krugman, of course, doesn't mention what debt did to the Weimar Republic and what arrived in its aftermath.

So why the Weimar Republic and not Japan? My answer: Who is saying that it won't happen to Japan?

Okay, wise guy, if a disaster is about to befall us, tell us when?

But herein lies the quandary. Economics is not an exact science, and it is not possible to know exactly when human beings lose faith in their country's currency. An economic implosion is not a pending collision with an asteroid whose timing can be predicted. Rather, it is more akin to an earthquake, whose arrival is predestined, but whose timing cannot be foretold.

Rely on Krugman? Yeah, right. Remember how he once wrote concerning Occupy Wall Street (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html):

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And just where is Occupy Wall Street today? As I said earlier, economics is not an exact science.

I am not a "serious-looking man in suit" and perhaps not deserving of respect, but when Douglas Elmendorf, head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, declares, "The federal budget is on a course that cannot be sustained indefinitely" (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101065200), maybe it's worth listening to what he has to say.

Was that a rumble I just heard?

Paul Krugman, "Dealing With Default": Defy Congress and Ignore the Debt Ceiling?

Paul Krugman is just chock full of good ideas. Remember how he once wrote concerning Occupy Wall Street (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html):

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's trillion dollar coin proposal, which even Jon Stewart labeled a "stupid f#cking idea" (see: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/jon_stewart_responds_to_krugman_platinum_coin_is_still_a_stupid_fcking_idea/).

Today, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Dealing With Default" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/opinion/krugman-dealing-with-default.html?_r=0), Krugman has another stroke of genius concerning what Obama could do if the US were to indeed hit the debt ceiling. After observing the disastrous potential consequences of the US government delaying or "prioritizing" repayment of its debt, Krugman notes that the president has another option: He could simply ignore Congress and the debt ceiling. Krugman writes:

"Many legal experts think there is another option: One way or another, the president could simply choose to defy Congress and ignore the debt ceiling.

Wouldn’t this be breaking the law? Maybe, maybe not — opinions differ. But not making good on federal obligations is also breaking the law. And if House Republicans are pushing the president into a situation where he must break the law no matter what he does, why not choose the version that hurts America least?"

Query: What would be the effect on the US dollar and the world economy of such a move by Obama? Would it really be that much better than default? There would still be an economic crash.

In addition, the question would then arise whether Obama had staged a "coup," meaning an unlawful seizure of power and not a brilliant stroke of genius.

Yup, Paul, that would almost be as successful as minting that trillion dollar platinum coin.

Ah, yes, the "stuff" that Nobel Prizes are made of . . .

Paul Krugman, "Delusions of Populism": More Delusional Than Krugman?

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? Is there anyone more delusional than this Nobelist?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Delusions of Populism" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/krugman-delusions-of-populism.html?_r=0), Krugman rages against Republican delusional thinking:

"Have you heard about 'libertarian populism' yet? If not, you will. It will surely be touted all over the airwaves and the opinion pages by the same kind of people who assured you, a few years ago, that Representative Paul Ryan was the very model of a Serious, Honest Conservative. So let me make a helpful public service announcement: It’s bunk.

. . . .

Enter libertarian populism. The idea here is that there exists a pool of disaffected working-class white voters who failed to turn out last year but can be mobilized again with the right kind of conservative economic program — and that this remobilization can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes."

Had I ever before heard about "libertarian populism"? No.

Do I care if "libertarian populism" can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes? No.

Beset with scandals, economic malaise that does not want to go away, signature legislation that is earmarked for disaster, and pressing overseas challenges demanding weighty decisions, Obama has gone into hiding. No, Obama may be a narcissist, but he is not delusional. Meanwhile, Washington has become dysfunctional.

Democrats? Republicans? Mark Leibovich in his new book "This Town" explains how they're feeding from the same trough (see: http://www.latimes.com/features/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-mark-leibovich-20130714,0,7643559.story).

And Hillary "What Difference Does It Make" Clinton, the hero of Benghazi, is making speeches for $200,000 a pop (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-keeps-busy-giving-paid-speeches-to-industry-groups/2013/07/11/94abdfc6-e9aa-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html?hpid=z2)? You go, girl!

I am again drawn to "Network," which, although almost 40 years old, remains as relevant as ever: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Paul Krugman, "Sympathy for the Luddites": The Dark Side of Technology

Is Paul Krugman correct? Most of the time? Some of the time? How much credence should we place in this Nobelist's op-eds? Well before turning to Krugman's op-ed of today's date, let's take a short trip down memory lane and go all the way back to . . . May 23, 2013, i.e. three weeks ago, when Paul praised "Abenomics" in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Japan the Model" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/opinion/krugman-japan-the-model.html?_r=0) and wrote:

"The good news starts with surprisingly rapid Japanese economic growth in the first quarter of this year — actually, substantially faster growth than that in the United States, while Europe’s economy continued to shrink. You never want to make too much of one quarter’s numbers, but that’s the kind of thing we want to see.

Meanwhile, Japanese stocks have soared, while the yen has fallen. And, in case you’re wondering, a weak yen is very good news for Japan because it makes the country’s export industries more competitive."

Fascinating. But now read from CNNMoney this morning  (http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/12/investing/nikkei-japan/index.html?iid=HP_Highlight):

"The market swings have been wildest in Japan, with the Nikkei (N225) now 20% off its recent peak and officially in bear market territory. At the same time, the yen has strengthened to 94 per dollar for the first time since early April.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who came back to power in December, has launched an aggressive campaign to boost Japan's economy following 15 years of deflation. The plan -- dubbed Abenomics -- includes coordinated government spending, central bank stimulus and structural economic reforms.

Investors responded to Abenomics by selling the yen and buying Japanese stocks. The weak yen helped boost shares of Japanese exporters, including Toyota (TM), Sony (SNE) and Kirin (KIRI). But those stocks and others have been punished this week as the yen regained ground.

. . . .

Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan is walking a fine line as it attempts to achieve an inflation rate of 2% without driving up interest rates on government debt. The country's gross public debt, after years of budget deficits, is projected to hit 230% of the size of the country's economy by 2014."

Kind of reminds me of when Krugman said of Occupy Wall Street in October 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html):

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Yup, he sure hit the nail on the head that time, too.

Back to the present. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Sympathy for the Luddites" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html?_r=0), Krugman warns of the effects of technology on the labor force:

"Today, however, a much darker picture of the effects of technology on labor is emerging. In this picture, highly educated workers are as likely as less educated workers to find themselves displaced and devalued, and pushing for more education may create as many problems as it solves."

Krugman concludes:

"Education, then, is no longer the answer to rising inequality, if it ever was (which I doubt).

So what is the answer? If the picture I’ve drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

I can already hear conservatives shouting about the evils of 'redistribution.' But what, exactly, would they propose instead?"

Okay, I'm also in favor of a "strong social safety net," but what happens when you increase "taxes on profits and/or investment income"? Answer: businesses and high wealth individuals move to more "hospitable" locales, eliminating even more jobs.

So what is Krugman advocating, "Abenomics," involving massive deficit spending, or simply higher corporate taxes?

Darned if I know.

Paul Krugman "Coins Against Crazies": Just Who Is Crazy?

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 6, 2011

Paul Krugman is just chock full of wonderful ideas, including his past advocacy on behalf of Occupy Wall Street. Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Coins Against Crazies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/krugman-coins-against-crazies.html), Krugman acknowledges that the US federal government's "revenue has fallen far short of spending," which in turn has demanded constant raising of America's debt ceiling. Regarding the debt ceiling, Krugman writes:

"If we were to hit the debt ceiling, the U.S. government would end up defaulting on many of its obligations. This would have disastrous effects on financial markets, the economy, and our standing in the world. Yet Republicans are threatening to trigger this disaster unless they get spending cuts that they weren’t able to enact through normal, Constitutional means."

Heaven help us if there should ever be spending cuts . . .

Which brings Krugman to a proposal that the federal government should mint a platinum coin to eliminate Republican meddling with Obama's spending spree:

"Here’s how it would work: The Treasury would mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion (or many coins with smaller values; it doesn’t really matter). This coin would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve, which would credit the sum to the government’s account. And the government could then write checks against that account, continuing normal operations without issuing new debt.

. . . .

[I]t’s the president’s duty to do whatever it takes, no matter how offbeat or silly it may sound, to defuse this hostage situation. Mint that coin!"

Ah, yes, the stuff that Nobel Prizes are made of.

However, as observed by John Steele Gordon, writing for Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/09/the-trillion-dollar-platinum-coin/):

"Platinum is currently selling for about $1,590 a troy ounce. So a $1 trillion coin would weigh 26,221 'troy tons,' which might present a bit of a transportation problem getting from the mint to the Federal Reserve. There is also the problem that nowhere near that much platinum has ever been mined since the metal first came to the attention of chemists in the 1740s. Last year a grand total of 211 tons was mined worldwide, almost all of it from South Africa, Russia, and Canada.

. . . .

So could the Treasury mint a coin, say the size of a silver dollar, out of platinum, and simply inscribe it $1,000,000,000,000? To do so would be indistinguishable, in a practical sense, from sending over new bonds with the face value of $1 trillion, as the coin would have an intrinsic value that would be only the tiniest fraction of a trillion dollars. That would violate Congress’s sole power to borrow money."

Mint the coin? I'm certain world financial markets would highly appreciate this stunt, which could cause instant collapse of the American economy.

But heck, why go to the trouble of minting a platinum coin when an autographed picture of Obama, inscribed with the amount of $10 trillion, should do the trick?

Thanks, Paul. Keep those lucid ideas coming!

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Brigadier General Hossein Salami: US Aircraft Carriers in Persian Gulf Nothing More Than "Rusty Iron"

According to Iran's Fars News Agency (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9104250358), the Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, has gone on record as saying:

"IRGC members are never intimidated by the hugeness of the aircraft carriers and roaring of the missiles of the US and trans-regional enemies and these equipments are nothing more than rusty iron in their eyes."

And that's not all. According to Brigadier General Salami, the current US build-up in the Persian Gulf is being undertaken because sending troops home from Iraq would "allow its depressed and angry soldiers to join the occupy wall street movement.

Does Salami actually believe this baloney? Are all of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps's commanders lunatics?

Gail Collins, "Running On Empty": Swimming Pools Serve As Public Toilets

Empty? Indeed, another vacuous op-ed, and I'm being kind.

Gail Collins took several days away from the New York Times op-ed page and has just celebrated her grand return with "Running On Empty" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/opinion/collins-running-on-empty.html), in which she tells us:

"Our biggest political division is the war between the empty places and the crowded places.

. . . .

The Tea Party is so Empty Places.

. . . .

Texas is so Tea Party.

. . . .

But until he dropped out of the race, varmint hunting was the dog on the roof of Romney’s 2008 campaign."

I'm wondering: If Texas is so Tea Party, is New York so Occupy Wall Street?

And once again, we have the "ingenious" segue leading up to her lame running joke concerning Romney's dog-on-the-roof story from 30 years ago. Hmmm, 30 years ago – that's about a year or two subsequent to the time when Obama was smoking weed with "The Choom Gang" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/the-choom-gang-president-obamas-pot-smoking-high-school-days-detailed-in-maraniss-book/2012/05/25/gJQAwFqEqU_blog.html), and a few short years prior to the time that Obama began his two-decade long relationship with the noxious Reverend Wright, but many years prior to Obama's foul smelling 2005 real estate transaction with Tony Rezko (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/maureen-dowd-brutality-of-servility.html).

But what is habitual weed smoking, prolonged association with a hatemonger pastor, or a questionable business deal with a convicted felon relative to dog-on-the-roof? After all, Romney is a . . . whisper when you say it . . . Republican.

With a New York Times bully pulpit from which she can pronounce upon the slaughter of innocents in Syria, new advances in medicine, or the pain of crushing unemployment throughout the US, Gail chooses each week to go where no man or woman has ever gone before to test the envelope of dog-on-the-roof.

Well, as long as we're talking about the worldliness of people living in "crowded places" such as New York, I wish to raise a new issue much in keeping with the Gail Collins's school of opinion pieces. As reported in a recent article entitled "Swimming Pools Are Public Toilet Bowls for Many: Survey" (http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/swimming-pools-public-toilet-bowls-many-survey-193700688.html) appearing in Yahoo! Shine:

"If you're taking a refreshing dip in a pool with four other people, odds are one of you is urinating. This is not gross-out myth, but cold, depressing fact from a recent survey conducted by the Water Quality & Health Council, a scientific research group sponsored by the American Chemistry Council.

The survey, conducted in April, asked nearly 1,000 adults whether they urinate in pools. One in five bravely admitted their mistakes. And those are the ones who admitted it."

Ah yes, the advantages of living with Gail in sophisticated crowded places! Pardon me if I avoid the community swimming pool this summer and find some other way to beat the heat.

Paul Krugman, "Depression and Democracy": No Mention of Anti-Semitism at The New York Times

Yet another instance of the pot calling the kettle black?

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "Depression and Democracy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/krugman-depression-and-democracy.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Paul Krugman tells us, "It’s time to start calling the current situation what it is: a depression." He goes on to express concern over Europe and the euro, and devotes much of the remainder of his opinion piece to the contention that democratic institutions are being undermined in Hungary:

"One of Hungary’s major parties, Jobbik, is a nightmare out of the 1930s: it’s anti-Roma (Gypsy), it’s anti-Semitic, and it even had a paramilitary arm. But the immediate threat comes from Fidesz, the governing center-right party.

Fidesz won an overwhelming Parliamentary majority last year, at least partly for economic reasons; Hungary isn’t on the euro, but it suffered severely because of large-scale borrowing in foreign currencies and also, to be frank, thanks to mismanagement and corruption on the part of the then-governing left-liberal parties. Now Fidesz, which rammed through a new Constitution last spring on a party-line vote, seems bent on establishing a permanent hold on power."

Sure, Paul is correct: Economic hardship spawns political radicalism. But why does he only focus on Hungary?

Elsewhere in Europe, under the ruling Islamist AK Party, Turkey has become the world leader in "imprisoned journalists" (http://archive.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=ipi-report-declares-turkey-world-leader-of-imprisoned-journalists-2011-04-08), while Turkish Kurds are denied their freedom, and women's rights are swept under the rug (e.g., murders of women have increased by 1,400 percent under the AK government, and only two of Turkey’s 26 ministers -- those responsible for education and women’s affairs -- are women). But why should Turkey trouble the "Conscience of a Liberal"? "Liberals" are apparently only concerned with injustices perpetrated by rightist, not Islamist, governments.

Much closer to home, Krugman is apparently indifferent to manifestations of anti-Semitism at his own newspaper (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-york-times-and-israel-bashing-yes.html). The publication of anti-Semitic, purportedly "moderated," online readers' comments by The Times, and the obsessive need of his newspaper's editorial department to regularly publish derogatory opinion pieces concerning Israel, lacking an iota of balance, are symptomatic of the "new" anti-Semitism of the left, which is also being fueled by economic decline.

It was remarkable how left-leaning columnists from The New York Times , including Krugman who visited the Zuccotti Park encampment of Occupy Wall Street (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/paul-krugman-visits-occup_n_1023812.html), pointedly refused to acknowledge the anti-Semitism being disseminated by this group (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/). Is anti-Semitism less worrisome when it issues from the left?

Sorry, Paul, don't lecture me on anti-Semitism in Budapest, when it's right under your nose at The New York Times.

Nicholas Kristof, "Occupy the Agenda": No Mention of Where His Wife Works

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Occupy the Agenda" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/kristof-occupy-the-agenda.html?ref=opinion), Nicholas Kristof again pays homage to Occupy Wall Street:

"The high ground that the protesters seized is not an archipelago of parks in America, but the national agenda. The movement has planted economic inequality on the nation’s consciousness, and it will be difficult for any mayor or police force to dislodge it."

Needless to say, no mention by Kristof of the movement's attendant violence, rape, drugs, anti-Semitism, or calls for civil disobedience. Moreover, Nicholas would have us believe that physical confrontations with protesters were exclusively the fault of the police.

Also no mention by Kristof that his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, is a Senior Managing Director at Mid-Market Securities (http://www.mid-marketsecurities.com/team.html), who previously worked at Goldman Sachs as a vice president in its investment management division as a private wealth advisor. Have a look at the Bloomberg article entitled "Goldman Hires Pulitzer-Winning Journalist to Snare Millionaires" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=agzMMPZAouLw&refer=home).

For the sake of transparency, perhaps Kristof would care to publish his family's combined gross income for 2010 and state the percentile of Americans to which they belong.

Kristof goes on to say:

"The statistic that takes my breath away is this: The top 1 percent of Americans possess a greater net worth than the entire bottom 90 percent, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute."

Indeed, have a look at Table 1 of the Economic Policy Institute analysis (http://epi.3cdn.net/2a7ccb3e9e618f0bbc_3nm6idnax.pdf), which tells us that in 2009, "the top 1% of wealth-owning households owned 34.6% of all net worth," while the bottom 90% owned 27.0%. Now suppose the total of all net worth is $100, and the top 1%, including persons such as George Soros, were required to distribute half of their holdings to the bottom 90%. In essence, this would mean that on average, persons in the bottom 90% would each possess $0.49 instead of $0.30 of the total $100. Bottom line, some may feel that this has contributed to making America more "egalitarian," but little has effectively been changed.

I don't oppose increasing taxes paid by the most affluent Americans, but it won't meaningfully reduce the budget deficit or federal debt. Other solutions need to be found.

Paul Krugman, "Failure Is Good": A Potshot at Thomas Friedman?

Paul Krugman has been ornery of late, seeking to rake fellow New York Times columnist, David Brooks, over the coals for daring to promote the virtues of America's oil shale reserves (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/krugman-here-comes-sun-krugman-wages.html).

Today, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Failure Is Good" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/krugman-failure-is-good.html?_r=1&hp), Krugman appears to have found a new object of derision. Observing that the economy will likely remain sour until at least 2014, Krugman declares for the umpteenth time:

"Slashing spending while the economy is depressed destroys jobs, and it’s probably even counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction, since it leads to lower revenue both now and in the future."

(Sorry, that was me yawning in the background as you perused Krugman's bull, as in papal).

More interesting, however, than Krugman's tired spending screed is his attack on "centrists":

"Oh, and let me give a special shout-out to 'centrist' pundits who won’t admit that President Obama has already given them what they want. The dialogue seems to go like this. Pundit: 'Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?' Mr. Obama: 'I support a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.' Pundit: 'Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?'"

In case you missed it, in his Times opinion piece on Tuesday entitled "Who's the Decider?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/whos-the-decider.html?_r=1&hp), Thomas Friedman declared:

"Here we are in America again on the eve of a major budgetary decision by yet another bipartisan 'supercommittee,' and does anyone know what President Obama’s preferred outcome is? Exactly which taxes does he want raised, and which spending does he want cut? The president’s politics on this issue seems to be a bowl of poll-tested mush."

You're such a naughty boy, Tom. Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Krugman!

What's gotten into Paul? Recently visiting the Occupy Wall Street encampment in New York and seemingly experiencing something akin to an orgasm, he declared (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2011/10/14/nyts-paul-krugman-occupy-wall-street-protest-wonderful-thing):

"But I think the explosion of this movement really suggests that there were an awful lot of people who were just waiting for somebody to say it, and here we are, and it’s a wonderful thing."

Personally, I don't consider rape, drugs, violence, anti-Semitism and defecation on police cars to be "wonderful," and I would suggest to Krugman that it is a little early to be getting into bed with this lot, where failure is never good.