{"id":7053,"date":"2014-08-24T20:06:36","date_gmt":"2014-08-24T20:06:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=7053"},"modified":"2014-08-24T20:07:22","modified_gmt":"2014-08-24T20:07:22","slug":"stupid-is-as-krugman-does","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=7053","title":{"rendered":"Stupid Is As Krugman Does"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Paul Krugman has once again decided to call a few \u201cfools and knaves\u201d who disagree with him by some nasty names. In fact, the Nobel Laureate\u2019s habit of lashing out with vitriolic playground language is pretty well documented; and, quite frankly, it demonstrates an astounding lack of self-awareness when it comes from a Keynesian who has turned\u00a0being wrong into a career option<\/a>. But in this rare case, I might actually let his painfully ironic comments slide without condemnation.<\/p>\n

Clive Crook, with Bloomberg News<\/a>, decided to take \u201cThe\u201d Krugman to task for being less-than civil in his critique of Paul Ryan:<\/p>\n

My Bloomberg View colleagues Megan McArdle and Noah Smith have been discussing whether it’s all right to call somebody stupid. \u201cNo, Paul Ryan isn’t stupid,\u201d said Kotlikoff. “No one, and I mean no one, deserves to be called stupid.” When I see four extremely smart writers struggling to make sense of an issue, I feel obliged to help. First, as Krugman points out, he didn’t actually call Ryan stupid; he called him a conman, which is worse.<\/em><\/p>\n

Sure\u2026 Go read\u00a0Krugman\u2019s piece<\/a>\u00a0if you want the whole story. Or, if you\u2019re trying to save yourself a little aggravation, you can grind a cheese grater against your forehead. I mean, The Krugman calls Ryan a conman, with an amazing degree of unintended irony. In fact, this splendidly fact-free analysis from Krugman would be filed under \u201cfiction\u201d by most people who consider economics a\u00a0science,<\/em>\u00a0and not an ideological weapon for the vengeance of Keynes.<\/p>\n

Remember how Krugman tried to use\u00a0healthcare costs as a way to justify Obamacare<\/a>? Remember how he said Europe would weather the economic turmoil far easier than America? Remember when he suggested that Europe\u2019s debt crises was in no way\u00a0related to an ever-expanding welfare state<\/a>? (That was my personal favorite \u201cKrugman\u201d moment\u2026 Government\u2019s spending more money than ever before on entitlements was, somehow, not related to an increasing government debt.)<\/p>\n

Yeah\u2026 He was wrong about all of that. And that either makes him an intellectually dishonest hustler (read: conman), or he is woefully underequipped (intellectually) to tackle the concept of macroeconomics\u2026 Other economists might even use the technical term of \u201cstupid\u201d to describe this sort of classic incompetence.<\/p>\n

But, the real question here isn\u2019t whether or not The Krugman is an economist worthy of our attention; it\u2019s whether or not it\u2019s OK to call someone stupid, right? Well\u2026 Oscar Wilde once pointed out when you\u2019re losing an argument, you still have the viable option of throwing out some insults. But, hey, I still say the term can be used with some degree of appropriateness. For example:<\/p>\n

Congressman Hank Johnson suggested that the island of Guam would tip over if too many people wandered over to one side\u2026 This was a stunning illustration that not everyone uses the gray matter in our heads to any adequate degree. The term \u201cstupid\u201d is actually pretty difficult to avoid when describing the Congressman\u2019s rambling concerns over Guam\u2019s ability to stay afloat.<\/p>\n