Paul Krugman is one of the most frustrating public intellectuals. He wonders why he doesn't receive credit for all the times he's been right. Maybe it's because he so obviously is right only because of partisan hatred and not any really insight. If I correctly call heads ten times in a row because I like heads, not because I see that the coin is warped to favor heads, I shouldn't get credit for it.
His column yesterday
is a great example of my frustration with him. He starts it off with a lie, then does a great job explaining a complex situation. Wait, did I say lie? Yes, he flat out lies about what the Federal Reserve has been doing recently. A non-economist could easily make the "mistake" he makes and I'd understand. I'm sure I make similar mistakes from time to time. However, Krugman is way too smart, well-trained, and well-read to not know the difference between lending and rolling over a loan
, particularly the economic impact of the difference. (Side note related to the Fed: I'm predicting, as I have been privately for a while, a significant run-up in inflation, soon. My best guess if we won't go far into double digits, but I'd be shocked if we don't see at least 6%). If we're being generous, we can call it intentionally misleading, a la the Bush administration's statements leading up to the invasion of Iraq, but let's call a spade a spade.
Labels: Econ, Expertise, Honesty, Politics