home

Pulling Up Powerline Quotes

So this 2005 Powerline quote on Krugman is making the rounds:

It must be depressing to be Paul Krugman. No matter how well the economy performs, Krugman’s bitter vendetta against the Bush administration requires him to hunt for the black lining in a sky full of silvery clouds. With the economy now booming, what can Krugman possibly have to complain about? In today’s column, titled That Hissing Sound, Krugman says there is a housing bubble, and it’s about to burst. . .

I use John Cole's cite because he has the decency to add "[c]onsidering my recent past (at least up until mid 2005), I am not really in a position to get all high and mighty . . ." Indeed. Now, I guess it is bad form to talk about Andrew Sullivan's joining up with Donald Luskin in their anti-Krugman crusade for so many years. It seems to me Andrew would be well served to acknowledge his errors and disavow Luskin, once and for all. He could cite this rant from Luskin on Krugman's Nobel prize:

With today's award to Paul Krugman, the Nobel as gone to an economist who died a decade ago. The person alive to receive the award is merely a public intellectual, a person operating in the same domain as Oprah Winfrey. And even as a public intellectual, the prize is inappropriate, because never before has a scientist operating in the capacity of a public intellectual so abused and debased the science he purports to represent. Krugman's New York Times column drawing on economics is the equivalent of 2006's Nobelists in Physics, astromers Mather and Smoot, doing a column on astrology -- and then, in that column, telling lies about astronomy. But what's done is done. The only question now is whether Krugman will pay taxes on the prize at the low rates enabled by the Bush tax cuts he has done so much to discredit, or if he will volunteer to pay taxes at higher rates he considers more fair.

You see, this is the level of discourse Sullivan maintained for many years towards Krugman. He should acknowledge his errors here. Indeed, it is precisely the type of thing Sullivan would have written in, say 2003 and 2004. Come clean Sully. Admit your idiocies. Start fresh.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Sully Ignores Krugman's Nobel | Dow Comes Back >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    BTD, the next couple of lines ... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:13:25 PM EST
    in that Powerline quote sounds even more ridiculous today:

    There are, of course, obvious differences between houses and stocks. Most people own only one house at a time, and transaction costs make it impractical to buy and sell houses the way you buy and sell stocks.

    You can all enjoy a hearty belly laugh at that.

    I hope those Powerline guys (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    are enjoying their Bubble Bath.

    Wow, how low class of Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    educating the masses on their economic system and having the gull to Democratize economics outside the Ivy Leagues.  

    Gee, that is why I admire him.  He is clear and he educates, what a novel role for academics.  

    Congratulations to Dr. Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by themomcat on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    His columns and blog are have been one of my regular must reads on the economy and, especially, the housing market. As for Luskin, sounds like sour grapes.


    ok, this guy luskin (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    displays publicly his complete ignorance: the nobel prize money is non-taxable income to the recipient. since it isn't something people can openly compete for, it's considered a gift, under IRC 170.

    just one more way of someone saying "hey, look at me, i'm a total, blithering idiot!" in public.

    I caught this too and looked it up (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by eric on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    Alas, the prize money is taxable.  There is an exception for these types of prizes, however, it requires that you give the money to charity.

    The rules are here:  LINK

    Parent

    my apologies: (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:15:54 PM EST
    i cited the wrong code section, it should have been IRC 74(b), not 170. hey, after a while, they all run together!

    and, per IRC 174(b)(3), the recipient is required to donate the monetary award to a designated charity or governmental unit, to avoid being taxed on it.

    thanks for pointing that out eric. :)

    however, this doesn't change the fact that luskin's an idiot.

    Parent

    dammit! (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:16:47 PM EST
    that should read:

    per IRC 74(b)(3)!

    Parent

    Agreed, he's (none / 0) (#21)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    an idiot.  And btw, the rules about Nobel prizes are ridiculous.  If you happen to jump through the first two hoops (not actively doing anything to get the prize), you still have to give the money away.

    Parent
    Thank you BTD and all (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by mg7505 on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:49:27 PM EST
    those who have called out Krugman's past critics today. Conservatives have some kind of vendetta against him; I can't remember how many times I heard people in 2006 say that "Krugman has been wrong on everything in the past decade!" Turns out foresight isn't error just because it takes a year or two (which Krugman predicted!) to materialize.

    Luskin and Sullivan on Krugman... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:30:26 PM EST
    ...in a word...envy.

    One of the 7 deadly sins...so unattractive in print.

    Andrew Sullivan, aka Sully (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by bigbay on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:33:18 AM EST
    believes in Eugenics, one of the most unscientific and nasty philosophies of the 20th Century. It's always worth noting that when discussing any opinion he has.

    Am I wrong (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    or did Sullivan have the same sort of stuff to say about Krugman during this year's primaries?

    Yup ... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:48:08 PM EST
    here's one example that may ring a few bells, titled:

    Why Krugman is Wrong

    Parent

    Krugman is a bit of a sad sack about things, (none / 0) (#8)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    It gets old, at least to me.  

    Was he right or wrong? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:03:24 PM EST
    If he's a clear-eyed pessimist, that's fine by me.

    Better than being an incurable optimist, like Friedman of the Friedman Unit fame of opining repeatedly how the next six months were critical to some success or other in Iraq.  Friedman is a master of the political art of punting a problem down the road.  

    Parent

    Pop Internationalism (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    Missing the point: who will be advising Obama? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:13:52 PM EST
    I don't think Obama will be reaching out to Krugman....  Who will be advising Obama and what is their record?

    I'll take Krugman's approach to free trade over most "liberal democrat" free traders....

    I seem to recall a lot of scorn heaped on (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Joelarama on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    Krugman by Obama supporters in the left blogosphere when he pointed out repeatedly that Hillary's proposals (particularly on healthcare) were the more progressive of the two Dem candidates.

    Quite a few diaries on the rec list at Daily Kos slamming Krugman back then.  How easily the tide turns.

    I agree Obama will not turn to Krugman.

    Parent

    Sullivan has been right about McCain, but.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Tom Hilton on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    ...I don't generally cite him because he was so obnoxiously wrong about so much for so long ("fifth column", anyone?).  Also, he hasn't been nearly as honest about it as John Cole (who I think has been admirably candid about his earlier life as a right-wing blogger).  

    Same thing with Hitchens--today he wrote a  mostly smart column about McCain and Palin (with gratuitous sliming of Clinton tacked onto the beginning--it wouldn't be Hitchens without that), but that doesn't come close to beginning to approach the territorial waters off the coast of making up for his last 6 years of hateful vitriol.  

    Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by esmense on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    has always made me extremely nervous. The man has never been right about anything. And, his hypocrisy and dishonesty is breath-taking. In fact, I consider the toleration and promotion of Sullivan in media like The New Republic, Salon and now The Atlantic to be a symptom of decadence and a major contribution to the debased and dishonest political debate over the last 20 plus years. A debate I hold responsible for many of the avoidable problems we now face. Michael Kelly though (another neo-conservative supported and promoted by both TNR and The Atlantic) was, before his death, probably an even more negatively influential character -- that is, he was more widely influential with members of the media and therefore more negatively influential in terms of the best interest of the county.