Paul Krugman Defends Michelle Malkin

[Lord Helmet]

I don't think it's a good idea to validate ANYTHING this crazy person says.

August 3, 2009, 10:54 am
In defense of Michelle Malkin
LINK

No, really. She’s been getting a lot of grief from progressive bloggers for saying that extended unemployment benefits cause higher unemployment, and attributing that view to Larry Katz, who has gone to some pains to say that he believes no such thing.

But while Larry Katz doesn’t believe that unemployment has surged because the government has made being unemployed such a great deal, Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago does — or at least he has been saying that unemployment is high not because employers have become less willing to hire, but because workers have become less willing to work. So Ms. Malkin’s theory of unemployment is no crazier than what’s coming out of some of our leading universities.

By the way, since I had to go through Casey Mulligan’s archives to do this post, I thought some readers might be interested in this gem.

[joeybee12]

1. I think he's defending her right to be crazy...

..."she's no crazier..."

[Nederland]

2. What Krugman said was accurate

So what's the problem? :shrug:

[Jakes Progress]

5. The problem is that Krugman's

article didn't have enough confetti in it.

Krugman once or twice has suggested that Obama should do something other than what he was doing. So, to some in DUland, that makes Krugman a racist, hater, lying republican, mccain supporter.

Therefore, anything he ever says for the rest of his life must be misinterpreted and flamed.

See. Simple.

[Lord Helmet]

8. More accurately, you have no problem pushing RW viewpoints here.

Malkin is poison and should be vilified, not defended by alleged lefties.

[Jakes Progress]

12. Thank you for so accurately proving my point.

But you don't need to feel so trivial forever. Your fan-based delirium will be much needed in the next general election. I know that I had a whole group of your kind to help me get out the vote in the last election. Rabid and dogged. I very much appreciated their help. I wish they would show up for the mid-terms, but they told me they only wanted to support Obama. As one said - "Democrat - Republican. I don't care. I just support Barack"

See you in a few years.

[mkultra]

13. not suprisingly, many here will take offense at your broad brushed

attack against those who support Obama as empty headed cheerleaders who only disagree with opinion that disagree with Obama. You are basically calling us ignorant for supporting Obama and thus you ARE now the right wing.

[Jakes Progress]

15. I know this is a lost cause.

But I have a few minutes.

Read the posts carefully. I did not say or insinuate that those who support Obama are empty headed cheerleaders. I did say that there is a contingent of empty headed cheerleaders who support Obama. Can you see the difference? It's not subtle.

Your last sentence also shows a dearth of reasoning skills. I did not say these people are ignorant for supporting Obama. I'm happy for their support of Obama. It was very helpful to those of us who want him in office and who want him to succeed. But I am not happy for their ignorance. It does not reflect well on my President. Nothing you write here involves any logical thought. Since I am a huge supporter of Barack Obama, i could hardly be accused of saying that those who support him are ignorant.

You miss all kinds of distinctions and definitions. You like to call people right wing. Do you know what that means? Do you have any grasp of political theory? You imply that it means someone who does not support Obama. How very uninformed.

What right-wing posts have I made? What right-wing positions do I support? If you lump me in with Krugman in the areas where I disagree with the president's stand, any person who understands politics and government would realize that Krugman and I are left of Obama, and the point of our complaint is that we wish him to take a more left-leaning stand. You show no understanding of the words you write.

Any decent book on politics or government history can help you clarify your rage and make your rants at least less silly.

[mkultra]

19. taken in a vacuum, your are correct

Unfortunately, characterization of this unnamed group follows a pattern of abuse that exists here in which the shelter is your claim but the truth bares other fruit. Your comments smack of the same that comes from those who speak of only two sides, the critical, and the empty headed.

Placing this burden on your back is, of course, an assumption, but no bigger than the one you make in this very thread that opposition will surely mount due to lack of enthusiasm alone.

This presumption that ardent supporters can be only ignorant fools, which clearly is your implication, is essentially a right wing talking point.

Again, if you disagree with Obama, so be it. As far as I'm concerned though, if its far for you to bash his supporters, its equally fair to bash his detractors.

[Jakes Progress]

29. Nice set of presumptions you have there.

Be nice if they were even remotely based on the text provided.

I don't have time to explain for you also, but one little point. Any bashing that has taken place here is not in any way based on supporting Obama or disagreeing with him.

But you know that, don't you. Let's say it is a disagreement between Obama supporters. The causes for the disagreement have been delineated.

[Arkana]

22. Please tell us more about everything you know! I'm all ears!

[Jakes Progress]

27. That's the problem.

A book would be a better starting place.

(What is a sticklly lie?"

[Arkana]

39. Check the most recent edition of the Hate Mailbag.

[Lord Helmet]

32. "fan-based delirium" -- you mean defending Krugman even when he's wrong?

Another example of projection, 30X. You are exhibiting the blind allegiance you accuse others of, setting yourself apart as someone who would gladly defend the rightwing nuttery of Michelle Malkin simply because Krugman did.

[Jakes Progress]

40. Reread your own OP

Get someone to explain the article to you.

[Lord Helmet]

42. Maybe I should explain it to you.

Krugman was defending Malkin's grotesque misunderstanding of unemployment by ridiculing some progressive bloggers misquoting the enconomic theory they used to spank Malkin.

So not only did Krugman elevate that heinous beast, he ridiculed progressive bloggers. I'll put you down for knee jerk standing with Krugman and in doing so with Malkin and against the progressive bloggers.

[Jakes Progress]

48. Just as I thought

You don't understand your own post.

I'll put it down to preordained bashing of anyone who questions the administration. In passages below, you defenders claim you are just less informed and lack an clear understanding of what is going on. Otherwise, why would you call Krugman and I right wingers when our questions concern the lack of leftness in some of the administration's actions. I'll give you credit for knowing that calling someone right wing is an insult, and you really wanted to hurl an insult because someone disagreed with your posturing. But I disagree with them that you operate at a lower level of understanding that they do. You have just been caught up in the passion and lashed out. Not productive, but better than being a right winger yourself.

But surely you must understand that if people actually start taking you seriously, your vitriol for all things not presidentially laudatory will hurt Obama. Most of us understand the passion that generated such fandom, we think he's super cool too. But when you use such faulty reasoning and silly name calling to attack other loyal Democrats, you risk pissing off those we will need in the next election. You are bright enough to know that. So I have to ask if satisfying your immediate little tantrums are really worth the chance of costing our party votes it needs.

[Lord Helmet]

58. Regardless of how benign you think Krugman facetious comments are

he elevated her ignorant remarks by calling an opposing POV just as ignorant. In this sense he mitigated her remarks, and elevating Michelle Malkin in any way, shape or form isn't IMO a good idea. I stand by that.

Maybe you disagree but that's not discernible because you have substituted two-dimensional attempted brow beating with accusations of O-bot adoration for actual discussion. The fact that I voted for Kucinich and have issues with several of Obama's policies doesn't seem to phase you as you attempt to pigeon hole and dismiss anything you disagree with. Yours is an irrelevant ridiculous argument. Good luck with all that.

[dorkulon]

64. You don't get it. Mulligan's POV does not "oppose" Malkin's; it supports it.

You're either suffering from a reading comprehension problem or you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid acknowledging that you were wrong in the first place.

To summarize, Malkin said unemployment benefits make unemployment worse, and claimed the Katz said so also. Katz says "I never said that". But there's this jerk Mulligan from U of C who does agree with her, and he's a tool.

Where in that you think Krugman attacked the left, I can't figure. But you're just wrong.

[Lord Helmet]

65. He prefaced his piece with: "She's been getting a lot of grief from progressive bloggers ..."

You're welcome to disagree with my premise but IMO what Krugman is doing is mitigating Malkin's lunacy by ridiculing an econ prof (Mulligan), thereby distilling the progressive bloggers' case against Malkin. You may not agree but I don't think I'm wrong. Such is life.

[Jakes Progress]

67. Please stop.

Dorkulon explained it very clearly. At least admit that you might have mistaken the piece. All your credibility is leaking.

When caught making a mistake, the best tact is to say, "Golly. I didn't see that. Sorry. At least my heart was in the right place."

Despising Malkin is just fine, even admirable. Trashing Krugman and attacking other DU'ers because you misread is just dumb.

[Lord Helmet]

69. I didn't attack Krugman, I disagreed with him.

I also didn't attack anybody here --- that's obviously your schtick, 30X. I offered my view. Whether you agree or not seems to be beside the point, but you're inane brow beating is just ridiculous.

And I still think Krugman should leave that douche Malkin in the gutter where she belongs and not defend her against progressive bloggers, something you seem OK with. You are welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.

[Jakes Progress]

71. Just how long will your repeat the same mistake?

He did not defend her. He did not defend her. He did not defend her.

Can you see anything in Krugman's writing or his history that would remotely suggest that he would support her or her views? Does it make any difference to you that you were wrong?

When I disagree, I'm attacking. When you attack you're disagreeing. You've picked up some really vile and disingenuous methods for discussion.

Continue with the mindless rants about anyone who disagrees with you or tries to correct your mistakes. It won't matter as more and more disregard your posts. My tone may have been harsh, but I was only trying to help a fellow DU'er stop digging a hole for themselves.

Go on try it. Say: "I guess I got carries away. In my zeal I forgot the goal. Thank you for explaining the difference between right wing and left wing."

[Jakes Progress]

66. I can't figure either.

Helmet is wrong but refuses to admit it. The words are plain. The sentiment is clear. But Helmet has a buzz on about Krugman.

These fanatics will be the death of the party.

Good luck if you engage. It's a wall.

[Lord Helmet]

75. I logged on to tell you

that I realized you are right about Mulligan. I was reading some other material at the time and got the name mixed up. My excuses are as follows: I was in and out all day long today and don't spend a lot time here usually anyway. Also to add to my distraction was a squawking noise in my ear.

This does not detract from the 'plonk' sound I heard when I read Krugman's piece. I still believe in an albeit weird way Krugman validated Malkin. His opening statement was about Malkin getting crap from liberal bloggers and that rubbed me the wrong way.

This is just my opinion. I don't think in the bigger scheme of things and especially now with healthcare (insurance) reform being debated that Krugman did a solid for "our side." I don't know that I'm right. It's just how I feel about it.

[dorkulon]

76. Well, I think the "giving grief" bit isn't really a slight,

just a brief description of what he's responding to. But it's still fairly cool of you to acknowledge that.

[burning rain]

11. Krugman has a way of separating....

principled lefties and liberals from those who have a charisma-driven "fanboy" approach to politics.

[Jakes Progress]

14. Most of us get it.

But at least the charisma-driven are helpful when it comes to putting out signs and stuff. Wish they would also go to the town meetings and less glamorous stuff. Not big on governing and working the roots. Not good at the subtleties. Just above I got called right wing and a supposed progressive. Forty-one years of organizing, marching, and voting don't count. It's all in how many pieces of Obama flair you are wearing.

Oh, well, I was glad to have them last November.

[mkultra]

20. you where called a right winger because you dislike those passionate

about Obama. Its not that they are stupid, in fact, odds are you are equally stupid, you just express your opinions differently.


Ill go even further and make the following blind assertion. If you do not or would not have felt the same way about the throngs who loved Kennedy, then your hatred is seated in bigotry.

[Jakes Progress]

26. Read it again.

How is what I said right wing? I don't like it that some trumpet their support for Obama without knowing anything about issues or policies or even political events. It reflects poorly on our party in the same way that the birthers reflect badly on the republicans.

A right winger supports right wing issues like anti-choice, continuing the war, banning books, rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor, etc. What in my post indicated support for those things.

So the poster that called me a right winger merely displayed ignorance. What disagreements I have with my President are exactly the opposite of the posters rant. Where I disagree with my president are positions where he is to the right of my views.

I do not dislike those who are passionate about Obama. I have disdain for those whose passion is fan-based and lacking in political reality. I like passionate liberals, even those who don't know why they are.

So. Stupid is as stupid does. I can find oblique ways to call you stupid too. It does not further the discourse and it does not preclude your being equally stupid.

And yes. I do express my opinions differently. I have a logical point and a political center. Mindless raving that attacks lifelong liberals for their efforts to move the nation in a more progressive direction based on nothing more than simple-minded, fan-boy cheerleading lacks either.

[mkultra]

28. if you cant accept the fact that people have varying levels

of political understanding and thus, various levels of political competency, then it is you who are stupid. So you believe yourself to be logical and have disdain for those who love Obama without "knowing why." To put it simply, this point of view is callous and ignorant.

You are not centered nor logical.

This discussion of course ignores my personal experiences with you as i have continually been forced to stand up for those who support Obama against your attacks. Perhaps i have just grown tired of fighting a "liberal" about support for liberals.

[Jakes Progress]

30. If you do not understand that that is not what is going on

then it is you who are stupid.

But tell me. Are you meaning to say that those who support Obama blindly are less informed or less competent than those who support him out of ideology and purpose? Sounds a little callous and ignorant to me.

Where is your position? What is the basis for your last statement? How is my text illogical? What statements cause you to believe that my political views are not centered in reality or in belief? Why do you insist on trying to sound intelligent but keep tossing out insults that have no point or basis? How is that logical?

Where is your center?

[mkultra]

34. i guess turn about is fair play

My stance is simple. Every person has a different capacity for understanding, access to information, ability to distinguish truth, and understanding of morality. These four things all roll up into the whole of what is a persons political stance. Some people support Obama because his policies make sense, some support him because they think he has compassion and judgment, some support him because his ideas and feelings resonate with their own.

I do not begrudge anyone who supports Obama for any single reason simply because i see enough in him to support. In the many posts i have seen from you, i have never once seen one glimmer of support based in anything other than obligation. On the other hand, i have seen you bash people who do support him for opinions that you consider inferior to your own.

Simply put, some people think through things and some people feel through them. If you prefer to think through things, then i support you. I do NOT support your efforts in bashing those who feel a strong emotional connection to Obama.

If i had seen anything from you that indicated that there was some aspect of this candidate that you like(aside from the "not a republican" aspect,) then i might not feel that you are really just here to punish his supporters.

[Jakes Progress]

41. How can you put together sentences

and still avoid understanding the written word? Is it a lack of understanding or a set of preconceived outcomes that color your comprehension? You restate positions that have been proven erroneous as if repetition will make them so. Then you demand to be taken seriously.

In no way have I bashed those who feel a strong emotional connection to Obama. You keep avoiding that. Nowhere do I "begrudge" anyone their reason for supporting Obama. Again. I think you know these things, but you choose to continue to misstate so as to further an argument for which you have no basis.

You read three posts that do not have anything to do with liking a candidate and jump wildly to the conclusion that I may not like Obama. Then you leap wildly to the conclusion that I am just here to "punish" supporters. You must be exhausted from that leaping to conclusions and flailing about for a point of reference.

It is an odd form of exercise, but I hope it does you some benefit.

[inna]

70. dearest JP, you rock, and i admire your angelic patience in dealing with

the poster above who's been nothing but absolutely ridiculous, rude and malicious.


:yourock:

[Jakes Progress]

72. Well,

it turned out to be pointless. The poster refuses help or truth.

It does drive me crazy when, faced with overwhelming evidence of error, some will just dig themselves in deeper. Several tried to help, but the poster just continues. I guess it does some good because more and more people will come to view posting from this one as pointless and uninformed.

A shame really.

[Cha]

3. She's been getting "grief" from me

because she's a fucking hypocritical idiot.

[Lord Helmet]

6. as she well should because she is poison

anybody defending Krugman defending that dipshit has lost their damn mind

[DrDan]

10. good heavens . . . get a grip

[Lord Helmet]

33. I see no redeeming qualities in her. Perhaps you do.

[DrDan]

43. perhaps you should reread that article

he said her views were no crazier than many others coming from today's universities.

I read that as more a condemnation of today's advanced economic academic settings than defense of her views.

What is wrong with that point of view? Krugman has earned his right to express his points of view.

[joshcryer]

37. Anyone saying Krugman is actually defending her has lost their damn mind.

[Lord Helmet]

38. He titled his piece "In Defense of Michelle Malkin" and then defended her comments on unemployment.

Next.

[dorkulon]

47. Stupid-dumb.

His point is that she's no dumber than many in his field--in other words, they are as dumb as her.

[Lord Helmet]

55. He defends/mitigates her stupid by calling Uof C Econ stupid.

Regardless of how facetious you think Krugman is being, he elevated Malkin by calling an opposing pov stupid. My point - again - is that I don't think it's a good idea to validate ANYTHING Malkin says.

[dorkulon]

57. I think his point is that it's silly to bash Malkin and not the Chicago Prof, when he's supposed to

be an economist and Malkin is clearly a dummy. I just don't think you have much of a point.

[Lord Helmet]

60. I consider Malkin and her ilk insidiously dangerous.

And any defense/mitigation of her bitter screeds isn't helping move this country to the left. Calling out those on the left as being equally ignorant isn't helping.

[dorkulon]

62. "Calling out those on the left as being equally ignorant"

Where did he do that? I hope you don't think that this Mulligan fellow is leftist just because he's a University prof. Where do you think shitheads like Malkin get these ideas?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

53. did we outlaw sarcasm?

next.

[immoderate]

54. And he forgot to use the...

:sarcasm:

--imm

[bertman]

56. Lord Helmet, perhaps you should take off your helmet and put on your thinking cap--

or at a minimum, your sarcasm detector.

When I read Krugman's column yesterday I guffawed. He's skewering the stupid bitch. But you're too, uhhh, angry to see it.

I'd wager that 90% of the people in this country who call themselves liberals had no idea that Malkin had said something as stupid as her assertion that unemployment benefits contribute to higher unemployment. Krugman was giving us a headsup --wink wink nudge nudge-- of her comment.

[Lord Helmet]

61. I disagree. By calling out a left POV as equally ignorant, Krugman isn't helping the discussion.

I might agree if Krugman had elaborated in this so-called heads up. Too many Americans don't do facetious, and on face value what Krugman said (and didn't say) and the way he said it isn't helping the discussion.

[inna]

74. who?

[n2doc]

4. I think all he is saying is that this is a fairly mainstream theory

Not that it is right, or correct. Theories can be wrong, and proven so. In this case I think it is pretty easy to prove it wrong, just cite the average number of applicants per job opening.

[Gman]

7. The "theory" is completely bogus ancient RW crap talking points

it's the same thing as saying people on welfare don't want to work when study after study over several decades consistently showed people would rather work than be on welfare. This is the same thing.

[Lord Helmet]

exactly

[redqueen]

23. Yet still there are those here willing to bend over backwards to make it seem 'fair' to back up

such ancient, bogus, RW talking points.

And then they call DUers names, those who disagree with them, in the process.

Interesting... but hardly surprising anymore.

[Blue_Tires]

9. so all workers have to do is WANT jobs bad enough and all will be well?

The wisdom of the famous University of Chicago, ladies and gents!

[LittleClarkie]

16. But what does he believe. Does he agree with Katz or Malkin?

This hits close to home, and I am immediately mad, and close to tears after reading this post.

My brother was laid off on July 6. He has been working his ass off for a month already looking for work. It is a comfort to know that if this process takes a while, that unemployment is there. But we are neither relying on it or using it for a free vacation. To say essentially that unemployment is up because people are lazy is such utter bullshit. Unemployment is up because companies are using the economy as an excuse to make themselves lean and mean, cutting people like my brother as a result. Every time my brother applies somewhere, it seems 50 people have applied there too. People are scared. It's scary to be unemployed in a bad economy and not be sure you'll find ANYTHING soon. Most people are not sitting around, it seems. Some may have lost heart and given up. But relatively few are just hanging out.

And unemployment is NOT that great a deal. You only get a portion of your normal wage. It's just nice to know it's there until March if need be. God I hope we don't need it that long though.

[joshcryer]

36. He's mocking our inherently shitty educational system.

He's not agreeing with those asinine views.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. The irony - he's as much a part of that system of academia as what he bashes.

That he doesn't see that says everything you want to know about Krugman.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. There's only one part of your post I take issue with...

"Unemployment is up because companies are using the economy as an excuse to make themselves lean and mean,"

Businesses shouldn't be wasting money on employees they don't need in the first place. Whether or not they're using the economy as an excuse to do what they should be doing already is truly irrelevant. You say this as if it's immoral that a business would do what it can to survive the recession and ensure that all of its other employees still have jobs by the time it's over.

I'm deeply sorry for your brother, but it's not fair to depict the business that fired him as being evil (unless there are other mitigating factors that weren't shared, of course).

I do agree with everything else you said, however. My wife spent almost 6 months unemployed before finally finding a job in June. It sucks out there, and there wasn't a day that went by that she didn't prefer to be working. It's an emotional and psychological marathon, and I don't envy the unemployed one bit. Malkin's a fucking moron for not understanding this.

[Beaverhausen]

17. This might have been true back in the Clinton years when unemployement was low

it is not true now and Malkin should have known that.

[LittleClarkie]

18. It's not scary when you know you can probably get a job easily enough

It is scary when the economy sucks and you're not sure how long you'll be out of job. By necessity people are not just coasting along because it's such a great deal. If they are, they're idiots.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. I don't think it was all that true back then

In economics we use labor market models to understand employment/unemployment and one of the variables is indeed the amount of welfare benefits that the government provides. The idea is that you have to consider the opportunity cost of working vs not working and in some cases not working makes more economic sense.

There are some cases where it probably makes more economic sense not to work and accept the benefits instead. For example, a single mother (or perhaps father) who has no access to child care. But in the vast majority of cases the level of welfare benefits provided in this country is not high enough to the point where it doesn't make sense to work.

Either way, you are correct that there is no way by any stretch of the imagination that this is true now. When there are more job applicants than jobs it means that there simply are not enough jobs, not that there are too many welfare benefits.

[spooky3]

21. isn't he making fun of Mulligan?

[redqueen]

24. The fact that you have to ask makes the OP's point. (nt)

[dorkulon]

46. Yes, yes he is. But it's not etched in huge letters on a mallet that he beats us over the head with

Subtlety will not do for this mob.

[redqueen]

68. This mob? How about average readers?

Those who will take away from this the idea that "Michelle Malkin is smart! Professors agree with her!"

Jeez... this place.

[dorkulon]

73. I'd call that takeaway beneath average. nt

[4lbs]

25. The unemployment rate is up because people don't want to work?

I guess then the local media reports of job fairs advertising several hundred jobs and tens of thousands of people showing up to apply for them is just imagined.

Those people don't really want to work according to Malkin. They just felt like showing up early in the morning, standing in line for several hours, writing up applications, talking a bit, and then walking away empty-handed. :eyes:

[Lord Helmet]

35. This has been a longstanding RW meme about unemployment.

[Enthusiast]

31. Michelle Malkin?

What a miserable ass!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. did you read it yourself and come to this conclusion?

[izzybeans]

49. Sounds like a critique of U of Chicago Economics to me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. it is

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Exactly right

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. krugman shouldnt assume all his readers are stupid. in fact i am glad he doesnt