Bad Timing by Joe Wilson

Barack Obama continues to lie about Iran. Don't take it from me, read someone with expertise on the Middle East, expertise on nuclear weapons, expertise on the IAEA, and who was right on everything he said about Iraq before the invasion.

At it again

Krugman wrote a very good explanation for laymen about his belief that increasing government spending now would be a good idea. I disagree with it, but that's not the point of this post. In the first two paragraphs of the column, Mr. Krugman would have you believe that President Hoover cut government spending, which made the Great Depression worse. He very carefully doesn't say this, but anyone who doesn't know the facts would come away from reading the column thinking that was what happened. Though obviously not on a level with them, this is a lie worthy of the lies the Bush administration told to get us to invade Iraq, where they didn't exactly say lies, but where uninformed listeners/readers would come away thinking falsehoods. For the record, government spending from 1929-1933 (just prior to the Great Depression through FDR's first term) was $3.8bn, $4bn, $4.1bn, $4.3bn, and $5.1bn. Not huge increases, but clear ones, especially in light of the deflationary environment.

A Surge of Knowledge

Want to have a far better understanding of what's happened in Iraq over the last few years than at least 90% of us? I recommend this piece. Great stuff, and not too long or hard to read.

Crunchy?

More evidence that the credit crunch is way overrated.
Also, an explanation of why the CDS markets didn't fail (it involves woonerfs!).

Flattering Himself

I agree with Krugman that the charts he puts up in this post are interesting and informative. And they do somewhat (but not totally) allay my concerns that inflation is picking up. My guess now is that inflation rises, but not by as much as I previously thought, and comes back down. However, Krugman tells us that he was right all along that deflation should be our concern. I believe I've read all of his columns and posts over the last year, probably even over the last two. He definitely has been an inflation skeptic, but he has never said that deflation should be our concern. Not in public anyway, maybe he made an offhand comment to someone after class or something. If anyone can point out where he has written this, or has audio of it, please point it out and I'll retract this, but until then, Krugman is a lying liar who lies. Also, to be an accurate dick, these charts do not indicate deflation at all, simply less inflation.

Problem solved

Paul Krugman (yes, him again) has a post about economic success being environmental disaster. Well, but just before that, he posted about how we should be scared by certain indicators of economic weakness. Seems to me, if the economy is in such bad shape, we should all be jumping for joy. Yay, yay, we're saved! We'll have none of that nasty, evil economic growth.

I feel like I'm reading posts by Lenny from Memento.

Sigh

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.

Thank you

Mankiw:

Note that points 1 and 2 are about political philosophy rather than economics. Economists can have opinions about these matters, but our opinions are not much better or worse by virtue of our training than those of anyone else.

This is something that often bugs me. People who are experts in one area often act or are treated as if they are experts in other areas. That doesn't that they have nothing to offer in those other areas, but they and we need to keep in mind the limits of their (possible) superiority.