Krugman Completely Misrepresents Herbert Hoover as Well as British Economy
It really is amazing that anybody takes New York Times columnist Paul Krugman seriously.
Consider the following factual misrepresentations in what he wrote Friday:
On the other side, we’ve been assured that spending cuts would do wonders for business confidence. But that hasn’t happened in any of the countries currently pursuing harsh austerity programs. Notably, when the Cameron government in Britain announced austerity measures last May, it received fawning praise from U.S. deficit hawks. But British business confidence plunged, and it has not recovered.
Really? Not according to KPMG:
Preview figures from the Global Business Outlook survey, compiled by Markit Economics on behalf of KPMG, show that 68% of manufacturing industry respondents expect activity to improve during the next 12 months, compared with just 8% anticipating a decrease.
The resulting balance is the highest since the survey began in June 2002.
In the service sector, meanwhile, 57% of firms think activity will increase over the coming year, with only 12% expecting it to fall. This balance is the strongest since April 2007.
So, in the manufacturing sector, confidence is the highest it's been since June 2002, and in the service sector, it's the highest since April 2007 before the recession began.
As such, Krugman wasn't just wrong - he was dead wrong.
On a related note, unemployment in Great Britain never got higher than 8 percent during this recession. Readers are reminded that this was the level the Obama administration said unemployment wouldn't exceed if their stimulus plan was enacted.
But that wasn't the only falsehead in this article:
In early 2009, John Boehner, now the speaker of the House, was widely and rightly mocked for declaring that since families were suffering, the government should tighten its own belt. That’s Herbert Hoover economics, and it’s as wrong now as it was in the 1930s.
Actually, spending under Hoover increased by six percent in 1930, eight percent in 1931, and 30 percent in 1932. During Hoover's four years, spending increased 47 percent. That's actually more than spending has risen since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.
So exactly how does Krugman get away with publishing such falsehoods on a regular basis?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Krugman writes for an audience that either doesn't . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:39pm.
. . . know history, or elects to ignore it. Marxist apologists do the same.Galv.. defining the audience
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 3:22pm.
Defining the audience.
Unfortunately what Krugman writes (fabricates) is summarily approved, applauded, and blessed by our national MSM, before it makes it's way to the little people.
(;`> gary
No fact checking at the Times
Submitted by jdlybrand on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:44pm.
Why let facts get in the way when all you do is make it up as you go. The Times will start charging for web content on the 28th. Can you say 'Turd in the Punch Bowl'?"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
The NYT tried that once and
Submitted by jdhawk on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 3:02pm.
The NYT tried that once and it failed miserably. This one will too. What it highlights is that they are in trouble financially. As people stop suscribing to their print edition, they go to their web site for free. It they had to go somewhere else on line to get their news, it is a click away whether that is the TV or the Internet and it more immediate. Why go at all. For example the NYT's handling of the Japan debacle. They have done nothing, but vilify nuclear energy posing ridiculous and unfounded dire scenarios. Meanwhile no one has been killed as a result of the nuclear power plants and as far a we know no one has received dangerous levels of radiation. Given that we don't know what we don't know, the NYTs has charged ahead with their usual inuendo and fear mongering.Misrepresented entirely
Submitted by n0mad on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:01pm.
Krugman - TAX stability, ECONOMIC stability - that's what we have professed would improve Business confidence, not spending cuts, per se. Spending cuts are a welcomed side effect to achieve stability, but businesses need to be able to KNOW what to plan for labor and asset wise.This guy is a know nothing. Try running a business for a couple of years and tell us what is the first thing on your mind when the government is talking taxes?
More Krugmanisms
Submitted by Morganfrost on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:22pm.
Never trust anyone who makes that much money preaching socialism!Lazy, Pampered Toady Resting On His Laurels
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:22pm.
Once again, Krugman has only to advance the leftist talking points to maintain his employment at the NYT. He is not required to research, or present facts in support of those talking points. He has his marching orders, he pecks out some poorly crafted, but well worded response to please those within the elitist and beltway bubbles and then he does a power lunch. The rest of the world is of no concern to him. Yeah...to hell with us.His Nobel Prize for Economics assures his job
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 3:01pm.
Besides his far Left worldview, his Nobel Prize gives the entire NYT enterprise "credibility" with its liberal audience.Is the UK aware Krugman won a Nobel?
Submitted by redright88 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 3:49pm.
If they knew that...they might change their minds and be more pessimistic about their future...like Krugman (the Nobel winner ) is. Maybe Krugman could take a picture with his Nobel...and send it to the business people of Great Britain....so they know he really won...a Nobel. That would change their minds....PRONTO! Bottom line is...you NEVER disagree...with Krugman....a Nobel winnerCan't stomach reading this clown anymore....
Submitted by Jaylouem on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 4:24pm.
......by the second paragraph, I'm running for the bathroom.Simple
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 4:25pm.
" So exactly how does Krugman get away with publishing such falsehoods on a regular basis."
That's what he gets paid to do.
Does anyone with half their
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 4:46pm.
Does anyone with half their brain tied behind their back believe a word this radical writes or says? I think not.We can see the trend in Nobel
Submitted by celator on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 5:58pm.
We can see the trend in Nobel Prize winners in recent years: Krugman with his Nobel and Obama with his Nobel. Let's see if there is a comparison here: Krugman is to economics as Obama is to the American Presidency. Two fails. Global Warming must have penetrated the skulls of the Nobel Committee.About that Nobel Prize Loser List
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 11:53pm.
Add to your list these losers:Yassar Arafat
Nelson Mandela
Al Gore
Mikhail Gorbachev
Jimmy Carter
A nice crowd.
Epitome of jobs
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 7:46pm.
Reporters consider working at the NYT the epitome of reporting jobs. Therefore very few reporters will criticise any reporter presently working there. It would hurt their chances of ever being hired by the rag.His Nobel Prize is in Economics
Submitted by TheHistorian on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:53pm.
so you'd think he would know the field. Obviously he is as ignorant of historical economics as he is of cause and effect. Some journalist ought to ask him to compare and contrast the Panic of 1920, the Crash of 1929, the Recession of 1982, and the Recession of 2007, what Government did, and what the results were. Both times taxes were cut, the economies recovered. When more regulation/more spending happened, the economy stalled. When the progressive types (including Hoover) are in charge the economy suffers.Dennis Prager
Is it possible for America to
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 4:55am.
Is it possible for America to get a restraining order against this guy so we never have to take his abuse ever again?
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...