Politics Can our Republican friends here please explain something...

Brian taking the kids to school.

 

I've proven it. Brian's proven it.

Can you prove you're not being ignorant on purpose?

 

The NYT piece was Krugman writing about the post-election failures. You're doing this wrong.

What Happened on Election Day
By The New York Times
since your last visit.
How the election and Donald Trump’s victory looks to Opinion writers.

Photo

Traders on the New York Stock Exchange on Nov. 1. Credit Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Paul Krugman: The Economic Fallout
By Paul Krugman
Comment 2016-11-09T00:42:44-05:00 November 9, 2016 12:42 AM ET
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight years after the great financial crisis.
It’s true that we’ve been adding jobs at a pretty good pace and are quite close to full employment. But we’ve been doing O.K. only thanks to extremely low interest rates. There’s nothing wrong with that per se. But what if something bad happens and the economy needs a boost? The Fed and its counterparts abroad basically have very little room for further rate cuts, and therefore very little ability to respond to adverse events.
Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks.
So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.

 

You're doing it right, Brian.

 

If it has a link, he doesn't want to click on it.

Yet he demands you provide him links.

 

Your definition of "credible" is highly questionable.

That has become quite clear from reading your posts.

 

Krugman in his own words in a "highly respected" publication like the NYTimes isn't credible.

 

First, I think that your estimation is off. 0.1% is really low, literally 1 of a thousand data points or articles or...

Second, I laid out in pretty systematic order, including links to all sources, the NYT, LA Times, Reuters and Krugman's own blogs. You can see his words as written by him. And then just judge for yourself how correct or prescient he is. Do you think 99.9% of the NYT, LAT, Reuter's and Krugman's own words are incorrectly attributing a thought to him, or incorrectly reporting on the economic stats published by the government?

Third, your measure of "credible" may be worth looking into. We already showed this week how you were missing a pretty big story about HRC (again, in her own words on video) because the source you said that you trust did not feel that it was newsworthy enough to report to you. I absolutely understand the concept of removing things from your life that don't make you enjoy it, but it seems to hamstring any arguments going forward where you're literally not looking at data points because you limit your sources.

 

The video can't be trusted!

 

Well, not exactly, but I can agree in principle that no one gets it right all the time. However, the rest of my post above points out multiple times where he epically fails. It's not that he's dumb. It's that he conflates his economic thinking with a political worldview that is incompatible with reality. Hugo Chavez was a smart man. Hugo Chavez probably believed very strongly that he was doing the right thing. Wanna take those earnings and invest them into some bolivars?

I guess what I'm asking is: what, other than the Nobel Prize, makes you think he is worth predicting anything? Why not listen to Stephen Moore or Robert Murphy or...?