The Last Time Paul Krugman Took a Shit After Eating Bad Egg Salad...

[TrollBuster9090]

...he left something in the toilet bowl that was better looking, more intelligent, and better qualified to criticize his economics theories than Fox News pundit Steve Hayes.


Stephen "Foghorn" Hayes Esq.

This afternoon I watched the panel discussion on Special Report on the stock market sell off today. At one point their token fake liberal, Juan Williams mentioned what Krugman had said about it, and Hayes scoffed, and said "yeah, yeah, that's liberal economics. And Krugman also thought the stimulus would work..."

Actually, you festering sack of puss with a spray-tan, Krugman said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

In January 2009, Krugman wrote that the "stimulus" would NOT work because it was TOO SMALL, and was loaded with stupid TAX CUTS that do NOTHING to stimulate the economy. And, as usual, KRUGMAN WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

From Krugman's January 2009 column:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/?_r=0

"The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus."

CORRECT!

"Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure."

AGAIN, CORRECT!

"I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”

Also correct, and THAT'S A HAT TRICK!

Apparently the people at Fox News haven't yet figured out that Paul Krugman's columns don't magically disappear after a few years.

Now, we all know why Steve Hayes is ON the Fox Panel. Because George Will is frequently mistaken for a wax museum dummy, and Charles Krauthammer is about as stimulating as the Sadness Turtle from The Neverending Story; and Hayes is there to spice up the act. But my message to Roger Ailes is: DON'T LET THIS ASSHOLE BADMOUTH KRUGMAN anymore, because every time he does, YOU look STUPID! Krugman is always right, and YOU are not worthy to scrub the gussets in his shorts.




Paul Krugman (not exactly as shown)

[pinboy3niner]

1. Trashing thread

[mdbl]

2. It's nice you want to defend Krugman but,,,

just don't watch Fux nooze and you won't feel the aggravations with their yellow journalism anymore. I have been Fux Free for a decade!

[TrollBuster9090]

11. I'm withdrawing in stages. Sort of like quitting smoking.

Special Report is now the only show I watch. The urge to bounce pieces of crumpled up newspaper off of Charles Krauthammer's head is too strong for me to resist. To continue the smoking analogy, I guess I'm at the nicorette gum stage.

[Cosmocat]

3. All of this.presumes they care

About reality or journalistic integrity.

They dont.

Their function is to tell half witted morons what they want to hear.

This both makes money directly for them by being the place half witted morons know they can go to to have their bizaire world view validated AND serves the bidding of the ulta rich to fester half the country into believing there is an evil liberal boogyman to keep them voting against their own interests.

I feel your pain, I really do.

I hate it, I hate that people fall for the bullshit, or willingly gobble it up.

But, these assholes could give a fuck about "looking stupid."

[eridani]

4. Do we have a Rude Pundit rival here? Maybe we do! n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

8. Hah! I'm honored by the comparison. But I'll just give the Rude Pundit my endorsement,

rather than run against the master of vulgarity.

[Fuddnik]

5. Well, Jon Stewart isn't around to watch Faux Nooz anymore.

Some poor soul has to do it.

A job I wouldn't wish on anyone.

[Fast Walker 52]

6. the stimulus DID work

it just didn't work as well as it could've because it was not enough money. Krugman's said this for years.

[ladjf]

7. The author of this piece uses excessive vulgarity which distracts from the

intended meanings. nt

[eridani]

13. Admittedly, Rude Pundit types are not to everyone's taste

But, not to worry. there are lots of seriously rational Krugman posts on DU.

[olddots]

9. egg salad poops ....

exellent analogy for creative financing .

[hifiguy]

10. I strongly urge DUers to read Ha-joon Chang's book

"23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism." Professor Chang neatly (and wittily) debunks the most common neoliberal talking points, proving with facts, logic and statistics that neoliberalism is utter bullshit.

[0rganism]

12. Fox is just doing it's job, as PK also predicted

"this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure."

and looky there, critics spinning the stimulus as a failure.
the misrepresentation of Krugman's analysis is, as usual, deliberate: Fox viewers are led to believe that all liberals are retarded, Marxists, or more often, both, and liberal economic viewpoints must always be chastised along those lines.

"the people at Fox News haven't yet figured out that Paul Krugman's columns don't magically disappear"
i can assure you, they simply don't care. they know vastly more people will watch Steve Hayes' unqualified opinions on the topic than have ever read (and ever will read) Krugman's editorial article in the first place. Fox has 2 jobs: promoting anything right/Republican, and dissing anything left/Democratic. in the process of doing these jobs, they ignore, lie, and distort at will and of necessity. the truth value of their content is largely irrelevant to the intended functions of Fox News, but the delivery must be confident and overwhelmingly biased to have the intended effect.

[TrollBuster9090]

14. Very true. It's just so weird to be living in a fact-free society, where a propaganda machine

can include the word "NEWS" in it's title. For the life of me, I don't know why that lawsuit against them failed.

For a long time we lived in a universe where news organizations repeated what people said, and the viewers believed it. We then moved on to a universe where Fox pundits could say that people said things which they actually DIDN'T. And now we've entered into the TRUMP universe, where Donald Trump appears on Fox, says a lot of things that aren't true, and when it's pointed out to Fox viewers that what he said is untrue...THEY LITERALLY DON'T CARE!

This is the ultimate example of the right wing noise machine reaping what they sew. They lied to their viewer base for years, until they've finally created a viewing base that literally DOESN"T CARE what the truth is...and therefore there's not even any point in making a PRETENSE out of telling the truth. Amazing.

[0rganism]

15. the success of the Trump candidacy is a testament to the Triumph of Fox News

thanks to Fox News, the GOP base is now firmly rooted in motivated individuals with ironclad ideology and zero capacity for self-examination in the face of conflicting facts. if a fact contradicts their beliefs, either it is automatically untrue (because their beliefs are extremely sincere) or it is insignificant/irrelevant in the face of the far more important principles they support.

[TrollBuster9090]

16. ABSOLUTELY! The only analogy I can think of is the "Hello Handsome" scene from Young Frankenstein.

As Fox News and the Republican establishment try to placate the monster THEY'VE created.