Home | About | Donate

Voodoo Journalism: Dr. Krugman Strikes Again—Risking His Credibility


Voodoo Journalism: Dr. Krugman Strikes Again—Risking His Credibility

John Atcheson

Paul Krugman is at it again. This time, he’s using his position as the leading progressive columnist in the “nation’s newspaper of record,” to ballyhoo a letter from four former heads of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Their letter criticizes an economic analysis of Bernie Sanders’ policies performed by University of Massachusetts economist, Gerald Friedman, which found that Sander’s platform would increase growth by 5.3%.


The corruption inherent in the ambition to power - which spreads from the core to the periphery.


Those who benefit from the way things are - feel threatened by change. Krugman is at the top of his game and while people may want and need change... he has grown comfortable with things just the way they are. The same thing goes for all elites, including minority elites and leadership. It is hard to feel the need for change when you yourself don't really need it.

It is rare that someone who is at the top will advocate changing things in general. It is a psychological thing.


Paul Krugman is showing his establishment credentials. I also once trusted him. There are too few honest Bernie Sanders's in the world. I think it is common sense that single payer healthcare would save money and these Clinton economists are just full of it.


Atcheson's point is well taken; but the number of grammatical and syntactic errors in his prose is appalling. Writing is an art-form of the highest order: there's never an excuse for an ugly sentence.


Very well said! This is what this issue, and all of the other issues are about -- fear of change. We knew this was going to happen: people who are comfortable with the status quo and their positions of power and influence are AFRAID. These are the same people who have some notoriety and access to the media...so they use their influence. I think Bernie just needs to keep repeating his message and explaining his positions so that everyone will finally hear what he is saying. Because it's really true, once people hear what he has to say and hear the sincerity in his voice and the common sense of his convictions...once people get a sense of Bernie's integrity, they are clearly inspired and agree with him. We need to drive home the point that THIS IS THE TIME! IF NOT NOW, WHEN ? What's the likelihood of having this chance come again?


I kind of believe or maybe I just want believe that it is more a psychological issue where rather than Krugman being untrustworthy that it is Krugman hobnobbing with those in power and those who have power ( like who writes for the NYTimes and who gets picked to be on Sunday morning talk shows etc.) and then his economic analysis reflects his own change in status. That change in status and income bracket doesn't automatically make him wrong but it does make it harder to feel what the 99% feels when you are now one of the 1%.


There has evolved a permanent online stratification of society that has created a famous and leadership strata for everything. This was most noticeable with Occupy. Originally people came from all over and just joined in. There was no leadership nor group in charge and the media had a devil of a time describing such an impromptu situation. Media voices kept asking what are Occupy's goals and who was in charge and could give interviews. The reality of our electronic Information Age is that it prefers structure rather than creative spontaneous evolution.

In effect change just doesn't fit in!!!!

As a result people and institutions become increasingly afraid of change because they fear losing something during the change over. An elite who can accommodate the power structure today fears being supplanted by a new elite that might be seen as less corrupted by money, status and power.

People are good at denial until someone else points out the discrepancies. A billionaire may think he can be for the little guy (like Trump often says) but wait till when the little guys want to do things differently than a billionaire might want things done. Like raising taxes on the rich ...lol.

Change would be fine as long as things stay much as they are - said the billionaire to the revolutionary.


Please take a bow, Mr. Atcheson....

I am sending LOUD applause for this:

"Finally, Sanders platform is NOT an economic document; it’s an ethical position. Sanders is not, and never has, pretended that his platform is primarily or even incidentally, an economic platform. It is a moral and ethical one. It is intended to assure a more equitable and just allocation of wealth and income; to get money out of politics; to restore sensible regulation of the financial sector; to increase access to health care and education; and to generally move us from an Oligarchy back to a democracy.

"So criticizing an ethical platform on the basis of a poorly constructed economic criticism of someone else’s entirely mainstream economic analysis has no relevance to Sanders qualifications as a candidate."

Was Krugman promised the gig of Treasury Secretary if Her Majesty gains the throne?


Put your money where your mouth is: give a decent example of this allegation.

BTW: Most of the time it's CD's editors who make spelling mistakes and other errors in the copy.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Most of the people who read Krugman's column would not vote for Sanders in a primary even if Krugman had never written this.


They are plain for all to see. Perhaps you are right, though; I obviously have no way of knowing whether they are the handiwork of the author or editors. If the latter, then the editing, rather than the writing, is appalling.


Since I get called a "spelling Nazi" for pointing out posters' errors... I don't often point out the awkward typos which include the misuse of the term it's (should be its), conjoined words, duplicated paragraphs and such. I am fairly certain it's the staff that's entering others' work into this site's own server that's largely responsible for the errors.

Keep it up, and you'll be Spelling Nazi #2. (I'm only half-kidding.)


Krugman is a conventional, establishment economist who has, along with all the others, and continues to fail the American populace, They have not put forth solutions to abate economic inequality and put us on a path of inclusive prosperity, inclusive opportunity and inclusive economic justice. Their minds are enslaved in one factor thinking, that is that human labor, while ignoring the non-human input factor of production, physical capital, which are wealth-creating, income-producing assets of the wealthy ownership class, who has rigged the system to ensure the ALL FUTURE capital asset project formation will be owned by them.
Why is this the reality in academia?
Economist John Maynard Keynes, whose Keynesian model is widely taught, falsely presumed that the only way to balance mass productive power with mass purchasing power is through a wage system – ignoring the possibility of democratizing future ownership of labor-displacing productive capital technologies and rising ownership incomes as a market-generated means of eliminating wage slavery, welfare slavery, debt slavery and charity slavery for the 99 percent of humanity.
Binary economist Louis Kelso argued that the Keynesian model fails to recognize that “when capital workers [owners] replace labor workers as the major suppliers of goods and services, labor employment alone becomes inadequate because labor’s share of the income arising from production cannot provide the progressively better standard of living that technology is making possible. Labor produces subsistence at best. Capital can produce affluence. To enjoy affluence, all households must engage to an increasing extent in capital work.”
Broadening personal productive capital asset ownership will allow EVERY citizen to contribute productive into the economy and to build personal wealth and earn a new source of income: dividends. This will create "customers with money" which will result in far greater demand for products and services, and thus grow the economy, benefiting ALL.
The how to accomplish this new paradigm is embodied in the Agenda of The Just Third Way Movement at http://foreconomicjustice.org/?p=5797, http://www.cesj.org/resources/articles-index/the-just-third-way-basic-principles-of-economic-and-social-justice-by-norman-g-kurland/, http://www.cesj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/jtw-graphicoverview-2013.pdf and http://www.cesj.org/resources/articles-index/the-just-third-way-a-new-vision-for-providing-hope-justice-and-economic-empowerment/.
Support Monetary Justice at http://capitalhomestead.org/page/monetary-justice.
Support the Capital Homestead Act at http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/, http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/capital-homestead-act-a-plan-for-getting-ownership-income-and-power-to-every-citizen/, http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/capital-homestead-act-summary/ and http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/ch-vehicles/.


Yes, a great piece of deconstruction by Acheson. Indeed, quite some people overseas - whose countries had invited Krugman to present his views - have already known his tendency to let ideology taint his "analyses." What's sad is that he has continued such behavior in the states as well. He shouldn't have, all the more because people support Sanders on the basis of what's happening to them, their families and friends. Many of these people have no time to read the NYT anyway.


I have a problem with philosophical economics. Marxism has created an identity that incorporates both the proletariat and the capitalist in opposition to each other and has become a self fulfilling prophecy because of those identity economics. Your descriptions of ownership asset/labor are theoretical or did I miss where you went through the steps necessary to migrate from the present system to the one you envision? What economic model will produce this evolutionary economics where labor becomes capital owners?

A small mom and pop candy store works as an example of your process but where does a fluid economy exist where one can first acquire capital ownership? If you work as a waitress and are newly hired then where can you make a living as an owner of capital assets where longetivity on the job increases your take home pay? The new hire would not be able to make a living at first nor would working people be able to switch jobs easily etc.

Secondly this reminds me of the sacred peasant anti-intellectualism of the past. Where is the provision made for training doctors and lawyers and other highly skilled occupations as owners of capital assets? Aren't they already?

I think provisions to incorporate 'owners/capital labor' like a worker owned factory is certainly possible but not as a total economic system. In other words the future needs the capitalist/labor model of today plus the owner labor/capital you mention and also socialism and raw capitalism all mixed in together to fit a multitude of economic needs.

I don't believe in isms or formulas to govern society and both capitalism (free market or otherwise) as well as socialism are too 'ismatic' to work alone. Neither is enough but together we just might have what we need.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Bernie is in trouble, Chris Hedges announced his support for Jill Stein, and so it goes. (Oped News).


"the likes of Ghandi, " is an example of an egregious misspelling but there was no way to reply to the demand for examples.