Is Paul Krugman Heartless, Clueless or Confused (Pick Only One)?

posted at 8:41 am on July 5, 2010 by

Paul Krugman reserved July 4 for what must be a deliberate deception, Punishing the Jobless, on the issue of extending unemployment benefits, which recently failed to pass the Senate.

Krugman blames Republicans, whom he terms “heartless”:

By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain — improves their chances in the midterm elections.

The only problem is that Krugman ignores that Republicans were in favor of extending benefits by taking the money from elsewhere in the budget, including unused stimulus funds. It was the Democrats who balked at this solution, insisting on running up more debt. So the entire premise of Krugman calling Republicans heartless amounts to nothing more than a fiscal policy dispute. Why aren’t Democrats heartless for not going along with the Republican proposal?

Next, Krugman terms “clueless” people like Sharron Angle who have mentioned that the welfare state, including unemployment benefits, can create a disincentive for people to take jobs they otherwise would not take. Krugman admits that this is a real phenomenon:

Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

Krugman says this phenomenon is irrelevant in a bad economy, but once again he ignores that Republicans were willing to extend benefits if the benefits were paid for in the budget, not paid for with more money borrowed from China. So who is the clueless one?

Last, Krugman views unemployment benefits as immediately stimulative in the economy, because the money will be spent. That’s a fair point, which is why it makes sense to use stimulus funds for this purpose, rather than propping up bloated state governments and union contracts. So Krugman’s point actually defeats his point.

Back to the title question. Is Paul Krugman heartless, clueless or confused?

Yes.

Cross-posted with updates at Legal Insurrection Blog

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So, basicly, every job created or unemployment benefit extended is borrowed from a future job .

I doubt if our children and grand children are going to cooperate with this plan. I can get my 14 yr old to mow the lawn if I pay him $10, but he won’t do it for free. He keeps throwing this argument about slavery and the Constitution at me….

percysunshine on July 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM

percy, your son’s argument is exactly the one we should be using on the government.

SDN on July 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Eventually the 14 year old gets tired of being told what to do and declares independence. I wonder when we’ll get tired of being told what to do.

lm10001 on July 5, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Clueless. How this joker ever won any kind of economic prize is beyond me.

And it is so easy to paint the GOP heartless, when the bill failed with bi-partisan (meaning Dems voted with GOP) support.

If politics is the art of compromise, where is the compromise? The Dems refuse to!

EliTheBean on July 5, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Percy, my Dad’s response to that was always one that being part of a family includes responsibiities. He made the money that clothed and fed me and until I could do that for myself, I needed to contribute to the family and help with the chores.

I also had to de-poop our yard (the home of 2 collies) using a big spoon and plastic baggie gloves. Nobody had heard of pooper scoopers back then. I won’t detail this operation as it usually occurred during sweltering heat.

It didn’t kill me.

Greyledge Gal on July 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM

I’m with Greyledge Gal on the family illustration. Chores are part of family life. Just do ‘em.

That said, her point only reinforces the original point from percysunshine. Remove the word “family” and there is zero justification for asking people at any time, now or in the future, to work without wage compensation.

The state has no standing to demand that of us, for any purpose whatsoever.

J.E. Dyer on July 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM

percysunshine on July 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM

My mom very quickly introduced me to the board of education applied to the seat of learning form of payment when I tried those arguments.

chemman on July 5, 2010 at 1:10 PM

The ‘government = parent and citizen = adolescent’ metaphor breaks down fairly quickly. Yet, that is what our elected officials are acting out. Go figure.

percysunshine on July 5, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Last, Krugman views unemployment benefits as immediately stimulative in the economy, because the money will be spent. That’s a fair point, which is why it makes sense to use stimulus funds for this purpose,

I think you have forgotten “The Forgotten Man”

PackerBronco on July 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Is Paul Krugman Heartless, Clueless or Confused (Pick Only One)?

Heartless

Schadenfreude on July 5, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Last, Krugman views unemployment benefits as immediately stimulative in the economy, because the money will be spent. That’s a fair point, which is why it makes sense to use stimulus funds for this purpose, rather than propping up bloated state governments and union contracts. So Krugman’s point actually defeats his point.

Hey Paul, let’s get with the program, your liberal logic, if that’s what it can be called, is certainly failing you both politically and rhetorically. What seems to be the problem, bub? Obamafailure got you down. Chin up, man….there’s hope for you still….or, maybe not..? your choice.

ted c on July 5, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Thank God Krugman isn’t part of the administration. Think how many more billions or trillions we’d owe if he had his way.

And if my dad told me to cut the grass I might have gotten an ice cream or something, but we had an allowance that pretty much covered any and all chores we were asked to do. No wasn’t really an option.

scalleywag on July 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Krugman: yes, yes and YES!!

He puts the ‘toad’ in ‘toady’!!

Khun Joe on July 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM

So Krugman’s point actually defeats his point.

Krugman has successfully re created “point/counterpoint” all by himself…..meh
Kudos to my friend & favorite Cornell professor–Prof Jacobsen for hitting another one out of the park!

huskerdiva on July 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Krugman and the Republicans are both wrong. Stop extending unemployement benefits, period!

My neighbor got laid off two years ago. She’s been collecting her checks faithfully (and food stamps) the entire time, while she’s doing jobs for cash on Craigslist. She had the nerve to complain that she can’t get on welfare now that her unemployment has run out and she doesn’t know what she’s going to do. I asked if she’d considered getting a job. She just rolled her eyes and said, ‘like what, going to work at walmart?’ She just admitted this to me yesterday and I am so disgusted I can’t even look at her right now. I’ve been so angry I feel like getting her busted for it but I don’t know who to call or if it’s the right thing to do. F*cking parasitic trash.

Monica on July 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Does anyone really read this clown’s drivel, much less pay attention to anything he has to blather about?

pilamaye on July 5, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Maybe he was talking about me.

I’m dead set against extending unemployment benefits. 6 months should be the absolute maximum.

forest on July 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Man, you guys are missing the point.
All we have to do to make poverty and unemployment go away is to write checks to those that don’t work or have jobs.
Likewise in order to get everyone healthcare we just need to give everyone healthcare.

If there is a crime problem just outlaw guns.

Don’t you people get it?
Nancy

TheSitRep on July 5, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Well, that pretty much beeayatch slapped ol’ Paul.

ncborn on July 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM

I’m with Greyledge Gal on the family illustration. Chores are part of family life. Just do ‘em.

That said, her point only reinforces the original point from percysunshine. Remove the word “family” and there is zero justification for asking people at any time, now or in the future, to work without wage compensation.

The state has no standing to demand that of us, for any purpose whatsoever.

J.E. Dyer on July 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Very Interesting points from Percysunshine, Greyledge Gal, and you J.E. Dyer.

I agree with all of them too.

Fortunately, we aren’t at the point where we think ‘The State’ = ‘The Family’. I hope we never get to that point.

At least a decent family has an obligation to take care of you to a great extent. The state cannot be bothered with obligations to the individual for any reason (including moral ones).

Chaz706 on July 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I’m guessing most people have picked up one what Krugman is doing these days, but if not:
He’s advocating all sides of the issue, in regards of what to do to “fix” the economy. Thus, when the history is written he can claim he was “right”.

Case in point:
Krugman: Spend spend spend!
Congress/Prez: Ok, how’s a trillion sound?
Krugman: Oh noes, that’s not enough!

So, if the stimulus would have worked, he could have claimed that he was right, and if they would have spent more it would have just sped up the recovery.

But now that it’s looking like the stimulus did nothing, he can just claim that they didn’t spend enough.

He literally cannot be proven wrong, which is the sign of a charlatan and thus he is not someone to be taken seriously.

strictnein on July 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Is Paul Krugman heartless, clueless or confused?

Yes.

How about just plain “he’s an idiot.”

Mike in Wisconsin on July 5, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Last, Krugman views unemployment benefits as immediately stimulative in the economy, because the money will be spent. That’s a fair point…

No it isn’t. Leave it in my paycheck and I promise it will still be spent.

Ronnie on July 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM

I’m quite certain that, as beneficent as Mr. Krugman is, especially considering his concern for the nation’s jobless, that he wouldn’t mind donating a major part of his rather obscene salary to say 15 or 20 deserving jobless? At $20K per person, that would be at least a heartfelt gesture, wouldn’t it, Mr. Krugman?

I’ll stop laughing here any minute… sorry. This person feels he is entitled to an international audience why, again?

creekspecter on July 5, 2010 at 4:24 PM

But he’s a Nobel prize winner, just like Obama.

tpitman on July 5, 2010 at 4:38 PM

At least that article was slighty different from Krugman’s past 4 articles about how we need to spend ourselves out of debt.

DrAllecon on July 5, 2010 at 4:42 PM

This doesn’t even begin to address Krugman’s heartlessness, cluelessness or confusion. He’s heartless because he supports a party that historically, and today, gleefully extends recessions with their “never waste a good crisis” mentality. Given a choice between a temporary (even extended temporary) fix or lower taxes, a stronger economy and a permanent job, he’ll vote for the former. How heartless indeed.

He’s clueless because everything Obama is trying to do will further destroy the economy. Health care, anyone? If you’re trying to block these things, you’re in the party with a clue. That ain’t you, Paul.

And I’m pretty sure he’s confused, because I’ll wager he took every deduction he had coming on his taxes. By his standard, that’s just so heartless and clueless of him … or confused … one of those.

Ronnie on July 5, 2010 at 4:46 PM

There was a day when a Nobel prize, or Ivy league education meant something positive. Krugman is proof: That day is long past.

Slowburn on July 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Now I’m not an economist and have never studied the subject formally. But it seems obvious to me that this “welfare checks stimulate the economy” argument is nothing more than a flimsy rationalization to hide the fact that the real motive is wealth redistribution.

If this were to stimulate the economy, it would surely have to result in an increase in production and goods sold. But the only way production is going to increase is either if people are taken off welfare and put to work, or if the technology in the means of production is improved so that existing workers are producing more per hour. In this case we can discount the latter.

Besides which, what good is it to artificially increase demand if that demand is not matched by an equivalent increase in supply? Do companies actually have the available capital to produce more to meet this demand? If not, you just have a situation in which more dollars are chasing the same quantity of goods, which will surely result in an increase in consumer prices – not an increase in production.

So where are the Krugmans of this world demanding that taxes be slashed to create more capital to increase production? I can’t hear them.

It just seems like common sense that you cannot stimulate an economy by handing out money to people who aren’t contributing to production themselves. Furthermore, the distribution of welfare benefits requires hundreds of thousands of public servants, each of whom are themselves taken out of production in order to hand out money to the non-productive. The Keynesians are hell bent on digging us into a deeper hole.

How about slashing the taxes of consumers and producers alike. They are the meat and potatoes of the economy, the solution to its recovery. And yet idiots like Krugman don’t seem in the slightest bit interested in untying their hands.

Sharke on July 5, 2010 at 5:20 PM

If there is anyone who is “clueless”, it’s Paulie Krugman.

GarandFan on July 5, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Krugman is an irrelevant media whore who lost any credibility long ago. Nobel prize? Big deal; that doesn’t have any credibility, either. Krugman is a bleeding heart who is hopelessly confused and completely clueless.

College Prof on July 5, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Why aren’t Democrats heartless for not going along with the Republican proposal?

Because if the Dems went along with the Rubs on this, it wouldn’t violate “pay go” as the money already exist in the unspent billions (allegedly, unspent billions).

The Dems want to borrow another $35 billion and that will increase the dept by $35 million plus interest.

Errrrrrr what if those unspent billions are gone? Unaccounted for?

Question.

Is unemployment so high today because of the failed Stim plan?
If yes then who is Heartless, Clueless?
The Dems have used the unemployed as pawns in a sick political game.

DSchoen on July 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM

First of all I’m not sure that the GOP wouldn’t vote to extend the unemployment benefits, but Pelosi has chosen to tie them to the doc fix. The large liability that was left out of the proposed health care reforms that are now law. If the doc fix had been included then health care would not have been scored as cost saving by the CBO and thus not passed. The GOP is just holding the Democrats feet to the fire, and Pelosi has chosen to hold unemployment benefits hostage in retaliation.

DFCtomm on July 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM

percysunshine on July 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM

I explain to my children that American constitutional democracy takes place outside our house. Inside, it’s a benevolent dictatorship. :)

Kafir on July 5, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Krugman doesn’t care about debate, he’s just bomb throwing.

scotash on July 5, 2010 at 8:48 PM